Cooperative Community Life-Long Learning Centers

You asked: “Cooperative Community Life-Long Learning Centers (CCL-LLCs) are emerging from the rapidly growing homeschooling and autodidact movements. They are the foundation for a radically different society. What are your thoughts?”

A public policy dialogue produced by Information Renaissance with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, IBM Corporation and Intel Corporation

I believe a 'fulcrum' exists that can maximally leverage all our efforts and resources and 'lift' education into better serving the higher good of all.

This fulcrum, common to all educational endeavors, to everyone involved in education and to each child, is learning. Nothing is more vital to our children, or to those of us who care about them, than how well we learn to help them learn well. For me, this is it in a nutshell, the fulcrum of change for each and all of us

I ask you to think about it. Learn into it. Its the best way to achieve better test results. (I will be happy to dialogue here) Its the best way to prepare our children for their futures. (I will be happy to dialogue here) Its the best way to liberate and empower the intelligence and spirit of humanity. (I will be happy to dialogue here).

So long as our conversations about improving education remain confined to an orientation that pervasively behaves as if what we want to teach is more important than how well our children learn, I think, we perpetuate the very core of the problems we say we are gathering to address.

To those of you in this collective who are less concerned with the institution of education and are instead concerned with your own children, I will add some extra depth...

Education (in school or at home) is always from the outside-in....Learning is always from the inside-out...no matter your values or curricular intentions... help your children learn to learn, (from the inside-out) as if, how well they are learning is more important than what they learning

If you are interested in where I am going with all this... I am currently in preproduction on a 3 part PBS television miniseries entitled "Children of the Code" - a look at the history of learning to learn, learning to read and the relationship between affect and cognition...

<http://www.implicity.org>. I found much in the California Education Dialogue to fall into the same trap.

I think you have it basicly right but do not follow your own thesis to its logical conclusion. You say in one place that "You can not teach children from the outside. They have to learn from the inside." Then you say "we have to [teach] children how to learn." This is an oxymoron.

If learning is an internal function for each person it makes no sense to try to 'teach' 40, 20 or even 2 persons at the same time. Each mind is different and prepared to 'learn' different things at different times and in different ways. A mentor may help one person at a time to find the right mode for learning what ever that person wants to learn and is able to learn.

This is the stumbling block on which most education critics founder. They confine themselves to the inside of the school/educate/teach box. If, like you have, they start with why and how we learn they run into the bounds of the box and fail to break out. Like many religions they refuse to look at the total knowledge available and continue to believe that the world was made in 7 days, that the world is only 4004 years old, and that they are selected by God for a happy after life.

The purpose of <LearningCommunities> is to escape this box and discuss the possible future learning programs that may make learning from the inside possible.

[The purpose of <CCL-LLCs> is to DO SOMETHING to create learning communities. So I am responding to you on <LC> and hope to learn more of your ideas and possible solutions.

David Boulton to Bill Ellis 8-12-02

I appreciate your engagement though I think you have prematurely 'boxed' me. I don't know where you found anything on my site that says "we have to [teach] children how to learn" (which I would agree would be oxymoronic).

As for my engagement with people in public education, I am not willing to rite off the millions of children trapped in the system. The system values learning as a utility for acquiring knowledge, skills and experience, I see knowledge skills and experiences as utilities for exercising one's participation in their learning. Education is backwards - its orientation is 180 degrees out of phase. If we don't address that, whether its in schools or homes we make the same mistake. That is the box I most want to break.

Bill Ellis to David Boulton 8-13-02

"Now, today, in our world of rapid change, is there something you think our children must be [taught] that is more important to their lives than how well they learn to learn? " <http://www.implicity.org >

David, above is the big bold quote from your vision statement that caught my eye. I freely admit, that as I said before, "you have it basically right." Your 'learning to learn' theme is just what this listserv is all about. And I hesitate to dwell on the minute differences we have.

"I am not willing to write off the millions of children trapped in the system," does imply that you are not ready to get out of the box and recognize that schools must go. And you ARE writing off those children. As long as "millions of children are trapped in the system" both they and society will be trapped in the system. That was the message of Niel, Holt, Illich, Schumacher, Friere, Goodman, and others. It is the talk that we must walk.

The systems, both school and society, are authoritarian, hierarchal, and undemocratic. One builds on the other. Many social critics are beginning, like Illich, to recognize that what our children 'learn' in schools they will expect and practice in life. Our work habits, our economic system, our health system, our technologies, our games, and our schools all reinforce one another and create, as they are created by, the 'modern' values and lifestyles.

Learning, as you so ably point out, is something each one of us does from the inside. It is impossible for schools to be on the inside of 20 or so people at the same time. Only I can be on my inside. Only you can be on your inside. Your logic up to that point is good. But it doesn't follow that you can change the system to be in every child's inside at the same time, in the same place, by the same mode of teaching. Learning is a one person activity. We need to create a learning system that makes learning possible for each and every person's own unique inside. That is not schools. It is learning communities.

Some of us see changing the way we learn, and the way we introduce new citizen into society as crucial to creating a human and humane society with justice and equity for all. "Deschooling Society / Creating Learning Communities" is not schools; it is about our social relationships and our relationships with nature.

To me thinking-out-of-the box means thinking about life in general not thinking about fixing the schools. I found one person in the California Dialogue who made, or almost made, this argument, but on the whole I find few if any educators who even look at the big picture.

Your post and website opens this dialogue. I look forward to you deeper analysis.

David, above is the big bold quote from your vision statement that caught my eye. I freely admit, that as I said before, "you have it basicly right." Your 'learning to learn' theme is just what this listserv is all about. And I hesitate to dwell on the minute differences we have.

THANKS BILL, I APPRECIATE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND *I DO* WANT US TO DWELL ON THE MINUTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US. DO YOU REMEMBER LORD KELVIN'S PROCLAMATION ABOUT PHYSICS AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY? BUT FOR SOME MINOR DETAILS TO WORK OUT HE THOUGHT OUR LEARNING ABOUT PHYSICS WAS ALL WRAPPED UP.

AS I AM UNSURE WHETHER THIS LISTSERV CAN MEDIATE HTML MESSAGES I WILL WRITE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO TRACK ME. (BTW CAN IT?)

BILL, I WANT TO ENGAGE YOU IN A DIALOGUE HERE. TO DO THAT WE NEED TO SUSPEND ANY RUSH TO JUDGMENT ABOUT OUR DIFFERENCES. I FELT PUT BACK IN A BOX VERY QUICKLY HERE. LETS RESPECT EACH OTHER'S GOOD INTENTIONS AND THOUGHTFULNESS AND LEARN TOGETHER. DIALOGUE STOPS WHEN 'CERTAINTIES' AND THE TONE OF 'IT IS SO-NESS' COME IN AND DISAVOW LEARNING. I RESPECT THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY BE SEEING SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL (I KNOW WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE) THAT IMPASSIONS YOU TO HOLD TO WHAT OTHERS MAY PERCEIVE AS A HARD LINE. BUT IF WE ARE TO LEARN TOGETHER, WE MUST ENTER THE SPACE TOGETHER - THINK AND FEEL THROUGH IT TOGETHER. IF WE DON'T CALL THAT OUT IN OUR DIALOGUES THEN WE CALL FORTH A RESIGNATION BY INFERENCE TO OUR AUTHORITIES. THAT CAN NEVER SERVE THE CAUSE OF LEARNING. BILL THIS CONVERSATION REFLECTS IN MINIATURE OUR WHOLE CONVERSATION: LEARNING & FACILITATING LEARNING - MUTUALLY LEARNING ORIENTED RELATIONSHIPS AS THE BASIS FOR 'EDUCATING' (WHEREVER THE VENUE). WE CAN'T FACILITATE THE KIND OF LEARNING WE BOTH WANT WITH A LOUDSPEAKER - RESIGNATION TO AUTHORITY, RATHER THAN PARTICIPATIVE LEARNING, ENCRUSTS LEARNING.

SO, AGAIN, YOU SAID: "I am not willing to write off the millions of children trapped in the system,"

AND YOUR RESPONSE INDICATES THAT YOU THINK THE 'SYSTEM' *MUST GO* AND YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT INVESTING ENERGY IN IT ONLY PROLONGS ITS CANCEROUS EFFECT UPON US ALL. WE NEED TO QUIT IT LIKE A BAD HABIT.

BILL, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE LEADING AND SUPPORTING AN IMPORTANT GROUP, THOSE WHO WANT TO 'MOVE OFF THE GRID' AND EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN WAYS FREE OF THE DARK SHADOWS AND INSTITUTIONAL INCOMPETENCE'S OF SCHOOLS. WE CAN HAVE A VERY FRUITFUL DIALOGUE WITHIN THAT SPACE.

A QUICK DIGRESSION...I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS IN LEARNING ABOUT THE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL, COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS OF LEARNING TO READ - I AM CONCERNED WITH HOW THE 'CODE' WE READ WITH 'INTERFACES' WITH THE NEUROLOGICAL PROCESSES OF BUFFERING (TRANSIENT MEMORY) COGNITIVE AMBIGUITY...ANYWAY MY LEARNING JOURNEY TOOK ME INTO THE FIELD OF ORTHOGRAPHIC REFORM. I DISCOVERED THAT 100 YEARS AGO, PEOPLE LIKE CHARLES DARWIN, ANDREW CARNEGIE, THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND MANY OTHERS FOUNDED AND SUPPORTED 'SIMPLIFIED SPELLING SOCIETIES'. THEY SAW THAT OUR ORTHOGRAPHIC (MARK TWAIN USED THE WORD 'CANCER') PROBLEM WAS DIRECTLY AND CAUSALLY RELATED TO ILLITERACY. THEY RAISED LOTS OF MONEY, GATHERED WORLD CLASS MINDS AND TRIED TO REFORM OUR SPELLING SYSTEM TO MAKE IT MORE PHONETIC. WHILE A HUNDRED YEARS LATER THESE SOCIETIES STILL EXIST AND THEY HAVE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF SUPPORTERS AROUND THE WORLD, THEIR CAUSE IS CONSIDERED FOLLY BY THE MAINSTREAM OF THE READING SCIENCES. THEY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA OF THE CONSTITUENCIES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THEIR PROPOSALS. THOUGH THE MADE A GREAT CASE AT ONE LEVEL THEY NEVER ADDRESSED WHY INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THE WORLD OF WRITING AND PUBLISHING SHOULD UNDERGO COSTLY AND COMPLEX CHANGES JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR CHILDREN TO READ. IN BECOMING DISMISSIBLE FOR THE FOLLY OF THEIR INSISTENCE ON CHANGING OUR SPELLING SYSTEM, THEY SQUANDERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE ORTHOGRAPHIC (PHONETIC MIS/CORRESPONDENCE) ISSUE INTO THE EVOLVING DIALOGUE ABOUT READING. THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY CAME TO SO QUICKLY DISMISS THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THEIR GOALS THAT THE BABY WENT OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. THEY HAD SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO CONTRIBUTE BUT ENDED UP HARDENING THE LISTENING AGAINST THEM.

IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT SCHOOLS WILL BE DISAPPEARING EN MASS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANYTHING YOUR ORGANIZATION (OR OTHERS LIKE IT) DOES IN OUR LIFETIMES. 20 YEARS FROM NOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN WILL, MOST PROBABLY, STILL BE IN SCHOOLS. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN MILLIONS OF CHILDREN ARE IN THE SYSTEM AND WILL REMAIN THERE. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THEM. I THINK ITS POSSIBLE TO IMPROVE THEIR LEARNING CIRCUMSTANCES DRAMATICALLY. I AM WILLING TO HOP THE FENCE AND LEARN TOGETHER IN YOUR YARD - I HAVE MUCH TO LEARN AND MUCH TO CONTRIBUTE - BUT I WILL IN PARALLEL WORK THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS FENCE AND CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE VALUE-CASE FULCRUMS FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN OUR WAY OF THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLING. I WON'T DEMEAN YOU FOR CHOOSING YOUR FOCUS - I RESPECT IT - SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT - I AM GLAD YOU ARE DOING IT - AND, UNTIL I LEARN OTHERWISE (WHICH I FEEL I AM OPEN TO), I WILL REMAIN AT WORK ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNING OF ALL CHILDREN, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE LEARNING. AGAIN, LETS RESPECT EACH OTHER.

The systems, both school and society, are authoritarian, hierarchal, and undemocratic. One builds on the other.

YES THEY TEND TO BE THAT WAY... MUST THEY BE SO? AGREEING THAT THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE...WHAT ARE THE COMPARATIVE STRATEGIES OF FACILITATING CHANGE? SHOULD WE BE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, CONDEMN IT AND BUILD A NEW ONE. SHOULD WE BE INSIDE THE SYSTEM AND FIND ITS FULCRUMS, LOCATIONS WHERE ITS INHERENT VALUES CAN BE USED TO DRIVE CHANGE? SOME COMBINATION OF BOTH? WE NEED TO LEARN OUR WAY INTO VIABLE LEARNING STRATEGIES THAT HELP GUIDE THE LEARNING OF THE COLLECTIVE.

25 YEARS AGO, IN CALIFORNIA ANYWAY, ONLY 1 OR 2% OF THE POPULATION ROUTINELY RECYCLED THEIR BOTTLES, CANS AND PAPER WASTE. TO DO SO MEANT KEEPING IT ALL SEPARATE AND THEN WHEN IT LOADED UP, TAKING IT TO SOME LOCATION WHERE NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTION BINS WERE PLACED. THE CAUSE GREW. AT SOME POINT SOMEONE DEVELOPED THE VALUE-CASE PROPOSITION THAT CROSSED THE THRESHOLD OF GETTING THE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO COOPERATE IN PLACING RECYCLING BINS IN NEARLY EVERYONE'S' HOMES. A SHORT TIME LATER, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENGAGED IN RECYCLING WAS SKYROCKETING. ITS WHAT THE PEOPLE ALREADY WANTED TO DO, THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFTED TO REDUCE THE OVERHEARD OF THEIR BEHAVIORS ALIGNING WITH AND SUPPORTING THEIR BEHAVIORS. THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHARED IN WANTING TO HELP THIS HAPPEN COLLABORATED TO FIND A WAY TO 'SHIFT' THE SYSTEM.

I HAVE ENGAGED IN SOME INTERESTING DIALOGUES INTO SUCH FULCRUMS IN THE AREAS OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEMOCRACY:

Many social critics are beginning,like Illich, to recognize that what our children 'learn' in schools they

will expect and practice in life. Our work habits, our economic system, our health system, our technologies, our games, and our schools all reinforce one another and create, as they are crreated by, the 'modern' values and lifestyles.

I HAVEN'T READ MANY OF THE CRITICS AND REFORMISTS THOUGH OTHERS ON THE TEAM I AM IN HAVE. BUT I HAVE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME IN THIS THOUGHT SPACE. .

25 YEARS FROM NOW WE WILL HAVE A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM, A HEALTH SYSTEM, EVEN MORE TECHNOLOGIES AND GAMES...WE WILL BE WORKING AND WE WILL HAVE WHAT WILL THEN BE CONSIDERED 'MODERN' VALUES. AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP SCAFFOLDING THAT WILL ALLOW THESE SYSTEMS AS THEY EXIST TODAY TO LEARN TO TRANSFORM INTO THE SYSTEMS WE WANT IN THE FUTURE.

IN HAWAII HERE THERE IS WHAT IS CALLED THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT. ITS IS BASED ON A GRIEVANCE THAT MANY NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE HAVE WITH THE WAY IN WHICH HAWAII WAS TAKEN FROM THEIR ANCESTORS. AT THE EXTREME THEY WANT TO BE A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND THEY LOBBY THE UN AND THE US CONGRESS TO ALLOW THEM TO SECEDE FROM THE US. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED, THEY HOLD ELECTIONS AND WHIP UP GREAT PASSIONS. BUT THE US WILL NOT ABANDON THE MILLION CITIZENS AND THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF HAWAII TO REDRESS THEIR GRIEVANCE. 20 YEARS FROM NOW HAWAII WILL STILL BE A US STATE, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE WILL BE THRIVING IN WHAT HAWAII EVOLVES INTO. SO LONG AS ITS LEADERS REMAIN FOCUSED ON AN UNREALISTIC OBJECTIVE THE BEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A SMALL GROUP WILL BE BONDED TOGETHER IN A PASSIONATE, SELF-RIGHTEOUS CRUSADE THAT AT ITS BEST CAN RAISE THE AUNTY BUT AT ITS WORSE MISDIRECTS THEIR PEOPLE'S CREATIVE CAPACITY TO FIND A CREDIBLE AND VIABLE RESOLUTION.

BILL, HAVING SAID WHAT I JUST SAID, I THINK THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED ABOVE ARE 'DOWNSTREAM' FROM THE DEEPER AND MORE IMPLICITLY UNDERLYING STRUCTURES OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT LEARNING NEEDS TO ADDRESS.

YES THERE ARE MUTUALLY REINFORCING PATTERNS BETWEEN OUR INSIDES AND OUR OUTSIDES.

OUR VERY CONSCIOUSNESS IS GENERATED BY HOW WE HAVE LEARNED CONDITIONS HOW WE ARE ABLE TO LEARN. AT THE CENTER OF OUR EXPERIENCE IS AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE AMBIGUITY. HOW WE LEARN TO PARTICIPATIVELY PROCESS THE AMBIGUITY WE FEEL AND THINK IS, I BELIEVE, THE 'GLUE' OF THE 'BOXES' YOU ARE POINTING TO.

THIS AREA, IS THE AREA I THINK MOST IMPORTANT TO EXPLORE. WE HAVE 700 MILLIONS YEARS OF NATURALLY EVOLVED LEARNING 'WIRING' THAT IS NOW OPERATING INSIDE OF A 200K YEAR OLD(ESTABLISHED THIS VERY WEEK IN REPORTS PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN) VERBALLY SELF-REFLEXIVE, VIRTUALIZED, SELF-AWARENESS. OUR NATURE DIDN'T EVOLVE TO LEARN WITHIN A VERBALLY SELF-REFLEXIVE SELF-AWARENESS SYSTEM - EVOLUTIONARILY SPEAKING ITS NEW. OUR BIOLOGICAL EMOTIONAL SYSTEMS (AFFECTS) NEVER EVOLVED TO OPERATE INSIDE THE SELF-VIRTUALIZED WORLD WE LIVE IN TODAY. WE MUST DEVELOP NEW WAYS OF UNFOLDING LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES THAT ENGAGE OUR ANCIENT EVOLUTIONARY 'WIRING' AND PROVIDE IT A RELEVANCY BRIDGE INTO THE VIRTUAL WORLD OF LANGUAGE BASED SELF-AWARE LEARNING. TO BEGIN TO DO THIS, I THINK, WE MUST START BY REALIZING:

THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN TEACH (NO MATTER WHERE WE TEACH IT) THAT IS MORE RELEVANT TO OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES THAN HOW WELL THEY LEARN... OUR PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL INTENTION MUST SHIFT CENTER FROM 'CONTENT OBJECTIVES' TO 'QUALITY OF PARTICIPATION OBJECTIVES' THIS LEADS TO YOUR NEXT POINT....

Learning, as you so ably point out, is something each one of us does from the inside. It is impossible for schools to be on the inside of 20 or so people at the same time.

Your logic up to that point is good. But it doesn't follow that you can change the system to be in every child's inside at the same time, in the same place, by the same mode of teaching.

NEVER SAID WE COULD OR SHOULD. (SLOW DOWN WITH THE QUICK-CAPTURE BOXES WILL YOU BILL). THE QUESTION IS MORE WHAT IS GENERALLY INVOLVED IN WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE INSIDE OF CHILDREN LEARNING AND HOW CAN WE MEET AND RESOURCE THEM THERE SO AS TO MAXIMALLY RESOURCE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE WELL IN THEIR LEARNING? THIS IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING ATTENTION CYCLE DYNAMICS, MEANING-NEED FLUCTUATIONS, COGNITIVE DISAMBIGUATION...

I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS IN THE LEARNING TO LEARN PIECE I SHARED WITH YOU (http://www.implicity.org/learning.htm) - BOTTOM LINE IN MY VIEW IS THAT WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE THEIR NEEDS... WE MUST FOR THEIR SAKE, HELP THEM BECOME MORE DIFFERENTIATED IN THEIR AWARENESS OF THEIR OWN LEARNING NEEDS AND TO EXPRESS THEM AS THE BASIS OF OUR HOW OUR SYSTEMS WORK. THIS IS, IN MY VIEW, THE CRITICAL INTERSECTION AND A SHORT TOUR OF THIS IS AVAILABLE AT:

I ALSO SPENT QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS ENVISIONING HOW A COMPUTER BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT COULD MEDIATE THE KIND OF LEARNING RELATIONSHIP I AM SPEAKING OF:

NOT THAT I AM TECHNOLOGY ADVOCATE...BUT I DO THINK MANY FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO NAVIGATE AMIDST THAT KNOWLEDGE IS A FORM OF TECHNOLOGY (THAT WE CARRY INSIDE RATHER THAN OUTSIDE) - CERTAIN THINGS ARE TECHNOLOGICAL AND CAN BE BEST LEARNED IN A TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT - OTHER THINGS (LIKE THE EMOTIONAL ASPECTS OF COLLABORATING) CARING FOR 'LIFE' NEEDS TO BE MINIMALLY MEDIATED... (HTTP://www.implicity.org/implicity2.htm scroll down to "co-implication")

NOT ALWAYS BILL, ITS ALWAYS A 1ST PERSON PARTICIPATIVE EXPERIENCE (MOSTLY UNCONSCIOUSLY) THAT HAPPENS IN A RICH MATRIX OF OTHER HUMAN INFLUENCES. WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF SOME, ARE RESOURCED BY AND IN DIALOGUE WITH OTHERS.

We need to create a learning system that makes learning possible for each and every person's own unique inside.

BILL, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SCHOOL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND DO THAT BY DEMONSTRATING THE POWER OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT ARE INITIALLY CREATED OUTSIDE OF SCHOOLS AS WELL AS WITHIN THEM...

Some of us see changing the way we learn, and the way we introduce new citizen into society as crucial to creating a human and humane society with justice and equity for all.

"Deschooling Society / Creating Learning Communities" is not schools; it is about our social relationships and our relationships with nature.

To me thinking-out-of-the box means thinking about life in general not thinking about fixing the schools.

I found one person in the California Dialogue who made, or almost made, this argument, but on the whole I find few if any educators who even look at the big picture.

I TAKE THIS AS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM BUT NOT AS THE ENDING LINE YOU SUGGEST. HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN BUT ARE TRAPPED IN THIS SYSTEM IS A CHALLENGE (I THINK) WE MUST RISE TO.

Your post and website opens this dialogue. I look forward to you deeper analysis.

THANK YOU BILL I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH ME PROVIDES US AND ALL THOSE THAT READ THIS. I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING A LITTLE SLOPPY IN THE END AND FOR NOT ADDRESSING SOME OF YOUR POINTS MORE FULLY. I HAVE WRITTEN ALL I HAVE TIME FOR RIGHT NOW BILL. I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN THE VOLUME OF MY RESPONSE AS A MEASURE OF MY INTEREST. I THINK IN FUTURE WE SHOULD BREAK OUR MESSAGES UP TO SINGLE POINTS SO THAT WE CAN LIMIT THE VOLUME AND MORE EASILY NAVIGATE. (HTML LISTERV WOULD BE GREAT TO)

I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING MORE HOMEWORK ON YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION. I AM EXTREMELY BUSY JUST NOW AND I WANT TO ENGAGE WITH YOU. IF I AM MISSING SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN AND YOU HAVE RESOURCES YOU CAN SPECIFICALLY TARGET MY ATTENTION TO, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO AS I HAVE.

...LEARNING TO LEARN FROM THE INSIDE OUT, AS IF, HOW WELL WE ARE LEARNING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE ARE LEARNING..

BILL ELLIS TO DAVID BOULTON 8-18-02

Most of the points you so well make have been well covered in our book "Creating Learning Communities" as well as many other books.

1) For me the father of it all is Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" still available in from publishers as well as online at:

3) "Instead of Edcucation" and other books by John Holt are the bibles of the homeschooling movement, that misses, IMHO, by not recognizing the broader cultural transformation now in the making.

4) My favorite contemporary author is Roland Meighan of Heretics Press in the UK and and founder of"Education Now" [read CLC pg 225]

5) "Escaping Education" by Gustavo Esteva and Madhy Prakes is a recent semi scholarly approach to deschooling.

If you read my chapter in the book "Creating Learning Communities" [CLC pg 14] you'll see that I don't know much about education. My bags are physics, economics, science policy and the future. I am also an autodidact. I learned most of what I know outside of the school. INMHO a cultural transformation is happening. That is the box in which I think. The transformation of learning is a small, but crucial, element of that transformation. My own approach has been strongly influenced that the brain research of Roger Sperry, Nobel Prize Winner. Who carried his brain research into social/philosophical fields.

I'm at the point where I am more interested in how we DO IT than deciding what to do. I spent 25+ years as editor of TRANET's newsletter-directory reporting on the many aspects of the progressive movement(s). Now it is time for me to walk my talk.

David Boulton to Bill Ellis 8-18-02

1) For me the father of it all is Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" still available in from publishers as well as online at:

3) "Instead of Edcucation" and other books by John Holt are the bibles of the homeschooling movement, that misses, IMHO, by not recognizing the broader cultural transformation now in the making.

4) My favorite contemporary author is Roland Meighan of Heretics Press in the UK and and founder of"Education Now" [read CLC pg 225]

5) "Escaping Education" by Gustavo Esteva and Madhy Prakes is a recent semi scholarly approach to deschooling.

THANKS BILL, I SEE VERY CLEARLY (IN MY OWN MIND) HOW SCHOOLS FAIL AND HURT OUR CHILDREN. I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH THAT AND SEEING IT FROM MY IMPLICATE VANTAGE, THOUGH CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT SUCH PEOPLE (ABOVE) HAVE SAID, I DON'T NEED REINFORCEMENT. NONETHELESS, I WILL TAKE YOUR SUGGESTED READING LIST UNDER ADVISEMENT AND LOOK AT THEIR WORKS WHEN I CAN.

WE ARE ALIKE HERE BILL, MY LEARNING ABOUT LEARNING IS FROM THE INSIDE NOT THE OUTSIDE...AND I HAVE ALSO BEEN BLESSED WITH THE ABILITY TO EMPATHIZE WITH CHILDREN AND FEEL AND SEE THEIR INTERNAL LEARNING IN THE HAPPENING...MY OUTER RESEARCH WORK SERVES BUT DOES NOT DIRECT THAT PROCESS.

The transformation of learning is a small, but crucial, element of that transformation.

HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE BILL, HOW WE REFRAME OUR SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICES RELATED TO LEARNING IS, IN MY MIND, THE MOST EFFICIENT AND POWERFUL FULCRUM OF CHANGE - THE PLACE WHERE THE MOST PROFOUND AND THE MOST PRACTICAL INTERSECT AT THE CO-IMPLICATE BASE OF ALL THE OTHER CHANGES WE ASPIRE TO FACILITATE. IT IS THE UNCONSCIOUS 'INNER INTERFACE' WE LEARN IN RELATION TO THE PERVASIVE QUALITIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTS WE LEARN IN THAT IS REGULATING OUR EMOTIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL (AND SPIRITUAL) CAPABILITIES AND QUALITIES. UNTIL WE AFFECT CHANGE THERE, MY SENSE IS, WE MISS THE REAL OPPORTUNITY OF OUR TIMES.

My own approach has been strongly influenced that the brain research of Roger Sperry, Nobel Prize Winner. Who carried his brain research into social/philosophical fields.

BILL I APPRECIATE HOW OUR DIALOGUE PROGRESSED. ITS BEEN WORTH OUR TIME TO COME TO THIS PLACE OF RESPECT AND DISTINCTION.

I'm at the point where I am more interested in how we DO IT than deciding what to do.

I THINK THERE IS A RISK OF TRYING TO THROW THE BALL BEFORE WE CATCH IT AND THE RESULT IS ANALOGOUS TO REARRANGING THE LITTER BOX RATHER THAN LETTING THE CAT LIVE IN NATURE.

I spent 25+ years as editor of TRANET's newsletter-directory reporting on the many aspects of the progressive movement(s).

GO IN PEACE AND WITH MY BEST WISHES TO YOU, YOUR ORGANIZATION AND THOSE YOU SERVE... WHENEVER WITHIN YOUR ORGANIZATION THE CONVERSATION TURNS DEEPER INTO THE NATURE OF LEARNING PING ME AND I WILL REJOIN THE DIALOGUE.

...LEARNING TO LEARN FROM THE INSIDE OUT, AS IF, HOW WELL WE ARE LEARNING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE ARE LEARNING..

PS - I HAVE MENTIONED 'AFFECT' (BIO-EMOTIONAL CIRCUITRY) YOU MIGHT, AT THE PURELY SOCIAL RE-ENGINEERING LEVEL OF WHAT YOU DO, FIND THIS INTERESTING: http://www.behavior.net/orgs/ssti/bltn12.html IT WAS WRITTEN BY A WORLD LEADING THERAPIST/THEORIST ON THE NATURE OF EMOTIONS AND WAS PRESENTED AT THE: Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence AT THE SUGGESTION OF BILL CLINTON.

for all children

Permission to use, copy, and distribute these materials for not-for-profit educational purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that "Implicity" - www.implicity.org" (with a functioning hyperlink when online) be cited as the source and appear in all excerpts, copies, and distributions. Thank you.