Abstract
Since the latter part of the 20th century, geopolitical events have resulted in the mass movement of people throughout the world. In the United States, this phenomenon has recently sparked controversies involving border walls, family separation, the fate of “dreamers,” and calls for comprehensive immigration reform. Similarly, other parts of the world have needed to address the influx of people from varied racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds, which creates more diverse and multicultural societies. This transition often generates tension, as migrant groups bring an assortment of worldview perspectives into their newly adopted countries, resulting in consequences for the schooling of children. Specifically, how do schools, often charged with fostering citizenship, promote social cohesion in a multicultural and democratic society? Learning for Life records an attempt to address this question for schools in the Netherlands.
The book reports a two-year action research project involving worldview education in nine schools, both private and public. In a European context, “worldview” education is synonymous with religious instruction and is a common feature of public, as well as private, schooling in many places in Europe. The study sought to replace the more traditional, sectarian, and teacher-centered approach to worldview instruction with a student-centered, hermeneutical-communicative model. By “hermeneutical,” the authors stress strategies designed to have teachers focus on issues existentially relevant to students. The “communicative” aspects seek to foster dialog where views and experiences are exchanged to promote understanding. The opening chapters address the necessity for this approach in a European context (chap. 1), the challenges unique to the Netherlands (chap. 2), and theoretical foundations of the model (chap. 3). What follows is a summary of the process in each of the schools (chap. 4), the requirements for teacher and staff preparation to implement the model (chap. 5), and consequences for the model’s future use (chap. 6).
In each school, a professional learning community (PLCs), consisting of school faculty, staff, and university researchers, was formed to plan objectives and implement strategies. The authors provide examples showing the application of the model to the discussion of particular holidays (e.g. Pentecost), varied class settings (e.g. geography), or skill development (e.g. engaging in a research project), across a variety of grade levels (i.e. elementary to secondary). Also, though most of the schools were sectarian private schools, some were public, and others cooperative (a combined effort of public and private). Similarly, the schools varied in their constituencies. Though some consisted of students from Christian homes, others were from schools wherein the major religious representation was Muslim, or could best be characterized as non-religious. In sum, the researchers conclude that the process was successful in promoting greater cultural understanding while taking deliberate steps to ensure a broad representation of schools to test the validity of the model.
The book is well written although not easily accessible for a lay reader. The authors are generally cognizant of the difficulties educators can experience in implementing the model. Like most student-centered instruction, they acknowledge that the model, while promoting deeper understanding, is “more time-consuming in preparation and implementation” (p. 99). Also, the model is difficult to implement in schools characterized by a curriculum-centered and outcomes-oriented approach (see p. 99). Further, the skills needed to implement effectively the model “exceed the qualifications of a bachelor’s degree in education” (p. 110), a claim which would be true of most teacher education programs in the United States. In addition, the authors note that more attention needs to be given to an interdisciplinary approach to worldview education as subjects such as history and literature are incomprehensible without knowledge of religion and belief. This statement seems to echo calls to promote biblical integration often made by many Christian educators in the United States. Finally, the question arises as to whether schools (especially public) should promote cultural accommodation by encouraging plurality or seek neutrality in a multicultural society. In terms of diversity, the history of public schooling, particularly in the United States, is one of contention and court battles over what constitutes a legitimate specificity which schools must acknowledge and accommodate. Here, the authors default to plurality and promote tolerance as a type of universal ethical standard. In the United States, where worldview education is more often associated with sectarian assent and identity development, such an approach may not find a welcome reception.