A note, with homage to Stephen King, to my Constant Reader: This series of essays on education are not meant to be simple reads. Struggle is essential to growth, and I intend these essays to invite and hopefully cultivate growth in both of us. Words are used in both unusual and precise ways to help create a specific field that enables conscious reflection, but until those concepts are internalized, the words meant to trigger them will lack potency. So, dig in, get your hands dirty, test the ideas here against your own experience. Watch yourself as you read them. If you’re curious to explore them further, drop me a note.
Introduction
The world of 2020 is radically different than even the world of 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the lives of 7.8 billion humans. Businesses have shuttered, some temporarily, some forever; parents struggle to juggle working from home, caring for their children, and keeping everyone safe and healthy. Of course, that assumes they still have a job, and it can be done from home. Essential workers, many working for less than a living wage, risk their lives daily to provide services so that others might work safely from their homes. And, at least in the US, unemployment claims have increased by more than 27x from the same period in 20191. Even democracy feels under attack by this invisible killer when citizens must choose between their health and their right to vote. Schools have shifted, quite rapidly, to online instruction, with educators adjusting to this new reality faster than nearly anyone. But while humanity has been taken out behind the school and knocked around, Earth has been healing; nitrogen-dioxide (NO2) levels for some cities are anywhere from 35–60% lower than a year ago2. No, the world of 2020 is barely recognizable when viewed from the vantage point of 2019. This underscores a fundamental truth — at once both obvious and too often ignored — that the world is not static, fixed, unchanging; we aren’t living like Bill Murray’s character Phil in our own Groundhog Day. Yet, we often behave as though today will be much the same as yesterday — that choices that led to success for us in the past, will lead to success in the present and in the future. We are content, mostly, to continue in our self-imposed loops — at least until a pandemic hits us smack in the face to wake us up.
Waking people up — lifting them to consciousness — is a theme from Carol Sanford’s latest book The Regenerative Life. In it, she introduces a mental framework called the Levels of Paradigm3:
She writes:
Paradigms provide context for our lives and work; they determine our perspectives and shape the choices we make and the actions we take. They are often unconscious, which means that it rarely occurs to us to examine them. It’s even rarer to recognize that our paradigms operate at different levels and that these levels have very different implications in terms of the quality of the effects that flow from our choices and actions.4
The Levels of Paradigm can be used as reflective instrument that allows us to structure our thinking, so that we can be conscious of our assumptions and beliefs and the effects that flow from them; otherwise, our thinking tends to clump together into a muddled mess. Examining our choices and actions is an ancient practice, though one that requires diligence and community to become a ritual for us. As Socrates said, “the unexamined life is not worth living”, and it was through deeply engaged questioning that Socrates worked as an educator, turning knowledge into understanding, understanding into wisdom.
Education, then, seems particularly relevant to examine, since almost 80 million people — nearly 1 in 4 Americans are students with another 10 million employed as teachers, administrators, or support staff5. In the span of a few short weeks, the world for these 90 million people (plus the 150 million or so parents) became very, very different as schools across the country closed their doors and dormitories. Pedagogical approaches that assumed physical interaction between educators and students now invalidated, educators scrambled to modify lesson plans to account for shelter-in-place health orders sweeping across the country, restrained by the uneven online access of their students. That educators were able to achieve any instruction under these conditions is nothing short of amazing, but the urgency of the switch did not provide much opportunity to explore — to examine — how best to achieve education outcomes. What should our education outcomes even be, now, in our new world? Business, healthcare, government will all change; how must education systems evolve to support them? Were they even keeping up with the world of 2019? What is essential about the roles of students, educators, and the education system itself? How are they nested within and connected to each other and to other systems? With the initial shockwave of the switch behind us, what better use of these uncertain times than to examine, as Sanford and Socrates would advocate, that which we are most certain about, so that we can emerge from this uncertainty with a reawakened spirit to be agents for beneficial change, to break out of our loops and chart a new path.
Essence of the Student
Understanding essence, as Sanford uses the term, can be the work of a lifetime, but we can begin the journey. She writes, “Essence becomes apparent in the patterns…that reveal how they engage with the world, their purpose in life, the unique value they create as the result of their endeavors.”6 It is that essential, enduring quality of any living system. For our purpose here, starting from essence lets us break our thinking free from current manifestations of existence and start from first principles based on living wholes and their nestedness with other living systems. As a meta-role, the Student is not who we are or what we do, but more of a part that we step into — and out of — as our circumstances and our needs change. We can play that part, as anyone who has watched a small child unrelated to us perform in a school play, with varying levels of capability. In the context of a meta-role like the Student, we can operate as such from each of the different paradigms. Examining the essence of the Student from each paradigm can help us understand why instruction sometimes feels tedious, learning outcomes stall, and frustration is the only common ground. It also enables us to discern why sometimes education seems almost magical, so that we can work consciously towards returning to that state again and again.
From Value Return
When the Student operates from a Value Return paradigm, they are primarily — perhaps entirely — focused on what they receive for their investment of time, money, or other resources. Their process at this level is to follow instructions from the Educator with the purpose to obtain and retain knowledge so that they can extract the value to navigate what is known. For them, learning is a largely passive endeavor; they expect the Educator to fill them with the knowledge that is their due. Any additional effort they expend comes with an expectation of a commensurate increase in knowledge retained. If that fails to happen, responsibility lies with the Educator and not with themselves. Learning is engaged as a directly transactional relationship between the Student and the Educator. Work at this level focuses on building competence so that the Student can function in the world, albeit a world that is viewed as largely static, such that the retained knowledge remains relevant. It’s necessary work, to be sure; spending energy re-inventing the wheel instead of simply using one makes little sense. But the dynamic nature of life does require us to examine whether a wheel is called for, now, in this moment, in this context. Are the conditions that called for a wheel in the past still present? Maybe a different kind of wheel is needed now? We no longer teach students how to use a slide rule; technology has made such knowledge obsolete. Knowledge has a shelf-life, but how often do we examine the expiration date?
From Arrest Disorder
At the level of Arrest Disorder, the Student is focused on closing the gaps in their knowledge to a known ideal as espoused by the Educator and the larger social group the Educator represents. The gaps are identified primarily through external assessments as administered and adjudicated by the Educator. The Student’s purpose here is to perfect themselves so that they are able sustain modernity in the face of entropy that is constantly trying to erode it. It is here that the Student begins to see life’s dynamic nature, but that dynamism is sourced from a belief that life and living systems degrade and must be fixed, to be put back into their proper place. It assumes, as Sanford writes, that the proper working of things is not only knowable, but already known. So even though they view the world as dynamic, their thinking remains largely fixed, focused on removing restraints, i.e. solving problems, and then adding new restraints to prevent future degradation. While still concerned primarily on achieving competence, the transactional individualism of Value Return expands outward towards serving others; learning isn’t solely for the benefit of the Student, but the means by which they can become worthy to take up the torches previously borne by their parents and grandparents. Students perceive progress at the level of Arrest Disorder, but it’s the progress of a hole being filled with dirt — of gaps being closed — rather than a progress sourced from their own and others’ potential. Still, the externally imposed guardrails of Arrest Disorder, like the assessments used by the Educator are valuable. Building competence is necessary; it’s just not sufficient. Evolving past it requires the Student to bring a different mind to learning.
From Do Good
As the Student rises to Do Good, a fundamental shift towards growth happens. They are no longer content to accept knowledge at face value and so begin to question the certainty of the “truths” they receive from the Educator. They ask these questions with a purpose of improving understanding, both their own and that of the Educator. The Student sees value in — cares about — learning. It’s no longer just about knowledge, but knowledge in context, knowledge experienced and tested — knowledge that becomes understanding. The value produced is both a capability and an ability to expand equity for themselves and others. While still grounded primarily from “what is”, they aren’t content with the status quo and strive to better both themselves and others. Doing good requires the Student to achieve more than competence; it requires growth in their character — the inner work to manage their own being, to persevere in the face of setbacks, to have empathy for others outside of their immediate circle of family and friends. That empathy unlocks a new mind — a dynamic mind — that sees potential and possibility in themselves and others. It’s the mind that wrestles with ideas, tries them on, sees where they fit, and where they no longer suffice. It’s a mind that wants to “do good” in the world. But what is “good”? Who decides? From this paradigm, good is defined by the mind of the Student — a well-intentioned projection of the Student onto the world. When like-minded Students engage together, systems can improve — equity is expanded. But, like any projection, it reduces the agency of others to be self-directing, such that when the intended “good” is not shared, conflict arises that requires yet another mind to reconcile.7
From Regenerate Life
Now, at last, we arrive at the Regenerative Student. Like the transition from Arrest Disorder to Do Good, the transition from Do Good to Regenerate Life requires a fundamental shift, but a shift an order of magnitude greater — and more difficult — than the one to Do Good. In the previous paradigms, the core process of the Student was secondary to that of the Educator; following instruction, closing gaps, and questioning certainty — all are rooted and relative to the Educator. From Regenerate Life, agency moves solidly to the Student as they explore the unknown. During their exploration they will encounter that which is already known to others, but the Regenerative Student will approach that knowledge anew, with less certainty than others that might tell them directly. That uncertainty awakens their inner drive to learn more, understand more, discover more about both themselves and their world. They see this process of discovery as never-ending — reducing gaps, but never eliminating. The Regenerative Student doesn’t travel alone; the Educator joins, too, serving as guide and resource to the Student. The Regenerative Student may follow in the steps of the Educator at times, but this is done consciously, with an understanding that the exploration is ultimately theirs to make.
Their core purpose in exploration is to discern the patterns of living systems, patterns sourced from the essence of those systems, their potential, and their nestedness with other living systems. This discernment requires the Regenerative Student to improve their understanding of both themselves and the systems in which they’re nested, so that they can separate what is innate to the system and what is projection of the Student onto that system. Their journey of self-actualization, of perfecting themselves, is now rooted and connected to their journey to be an agent of systems-actualization.
The core value of the Regenerative Student in discerning patterns is to make real what’s possible for themselves and the living systems in which they are nested. The work on character begun in Do Good deepens so that expanding equity is contextual, sourced from caring enough about the autonomy and uniqueness of other living systems that their essence can be more fully expressed, be realized. It is by working from the essence of living systems that the conflict from incompatible notions of Do Good are reconciled. From here, modern life is not only sustained; it evolves. Navigation then becomes more precise, more focused; it becomes, as Sanford would say, nodal. It is their external considering, their deep caring, that awakens self-motivation to be an active player in the world and grounds that activity to the service of others, rather than to their own advancement.
Conclusion
In this way, we can see how work at the Regenerate Life level fulfills the process, purpose, and value of the Do Good level. Likewise, when seen as nested within Regenerate Life, work at the Do Good level can be seen to fulfill the needs of work at Arrest Disorder, and work at Arrest Disorder, when nested within Do Good, can fulfill the needs of Value Return.
When working from higher levels, the needs of the lower levels can be met. The reverse is not true; work at the lower levels does not fulfill the needs of the higher levels. As a Student, work across all levels of paradigm is useful, even necessary, but work at lower levels becomes more powerful when nested within and guided by the process, purpose, and value of the higher levels. This nesting is key because it makes visible the highest order education outcomes for the Student. Yes, knowing the plot of Macbeth is valuable, but not as valuable as understanding the motivation and character of Macbeth and his lady wife. But more valuable still is the cultivation of the mind that see the essence of Macbeth, how he is nested within the larger systems of his family, his thanedoms, and the kingdom of Scotland. The mind that can image these systems — their workings and their inter-workings — can see the potential inherent in these systems and care enough about these systems and themselves to become an agent in support of their mutual evolution — that’s the real prize. Work at the level of Regenerate Life requires building the Student’s competence, yes, but also their character and motivation. Wholeness is only present when all three come together.8
Macbeth certainly had competence and motivation, even if some of that motivation was externally sourced by the witches. What he lacked was the strength of character to be externally considering, and so missed the nestedness of living systems. Despite becoming king, it didn’t work out for Macbeth in the end. Macbeth couldn’t break his loop. Can we?
In part two of this series, we’ll examine the essence of the Educator and the relationship between Student and Educator from each paradigm, exploring how to make the climb and the obstacles that often threaten to toss us back down the mountain.
Thank you to my beta readers: Ken, Max, Michelle, Myriam, and Peter. And special thanks to Carol Sanford, of course.
Originally published on Medium.
References
See Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. See also Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims, U.S. Department of Labor.
See Coronavirus pandemic leading to huge drop in air pollution, The Guardian.
Understanding these four levels is essential to make sense of the analysis that follows. She provides more detail and context in her book, but a shorter introduction to them is found in A White Paper on Regeneration’s Significance — Part 2: The Four Modern Paradigms.
Sanford, Carol. The Regenerative Life (p. 31). Quercus. Kindle Edition.
See Digest of Education Statistics: 2018 and Expenditures of educational institutions, National Center for Education Statistics.
A quick introduction to essence is found in What Is Regeneration? Part 4 — Singularity, with more context and detail in The Regenerative Life.
As an example, consider the re-education of Navajo youth in the 1900s by missionary boarding schools as a well-intentioned effort to “Do Good” that robbed the youth of their agency to be self-determining.
Triad of Competence, Character, and Motivation courtesy of Max Shkud.