PART 3 -CHANGE IN SOCIETY AND ITS APPLICATION TO EDUCATION
Returning to one's destiny is known as the constant.
Knowledge of the constant is known as discernment.
Woe to him who wilfully innovates
While ignorant of the constant,
But should one act from knowledge of the constant
One's actions will lead to impartiality,
Impartiality to kingliness,
Kingliness to Heaven,
Heaven to the way,
The way to perpetuity,
And to the end of one's days one will meet with no danger.
Lao Tzu XVI[*1]
Evolution and revolution can be seen as the two counterparts of the yin-yang symbol
with all that that entails.
For me my political rationale was based on a deep non-violent commitment combined
with a firm belief that in time if the inequalities of society, specifically
Western-promoted capitalist society, are not coped with, then violence will follow.
Therefore I am deeply committed to the notion that social change should evolve and
not stagnate, because the stagnation could lead to revolution.
Let me try to demonstrate in part this notion. In the Turning Point Capra proposes the
notion that civilisations rise and fall in a cyclical pattern [Capra p8]. "Toynbee sees
the basic pattern in the genesis of civilisations as a pattern of interaction which he
calls 'challenge-and-response'. A challenge from the natural or social environment
provokes a creative response in a society, or a social group, which induces that
society to enter the process of civilisation. The civilisation continues to grow when its
successful response to the initial challenge generates cultural momentum that carries
the society beyond a state of equilibrium into an overbalance that presents itself as a
fresh challenge." [Capra p8] "Ancient Chinese philosophers believed that all
manifestations of reality are generated by the dynamic interplay between two polar
forces which they called the yin and yang"[Capra p9].
Capra refers us to Sorokin who "contends that the cyclical rhythms of interplay
between sensate and ideational expressions of human culture", where "sensate ....
holds that matter alone is the ultimate reality" and where "ideational ...... holds that
true reality lies beyond the material world", "also produce an intermediate,
synthesising stage - the idealistic - which represents their harmonious blending".
"These three basic patterns of human cultural expression have, according to Sorokin,
produced identifiable cycles in western civilisation"[Capra p13].
What happens when you block the harmonious cyclical patterns, they become
truncated; instead of evolving in the natural cyclical rhythms we have the truncation of
revolution. Over a long period of history these truncations become smoothed out into
the curve of Capra p8 but to the people at the time they experience catastrophe, war,
hunger, pestilence etc. When you examine historical models of change as above the
harmony of longevity hides the misery of contemporaneous disharmony.
Typical of paradigms and paradoxes part of the "constant" of Lao Tzu is the cyclical
rhythms referred to by Capra, and our aims should be to harmonise with both, to
meet challenges and respond constructively, to synthesise a balance between the
"sensate" and the "ideational". In a way I am describing evolution as the harmony of
change, and revolution as a result of resistance to change. Yet this change is not
innovation, this is the constant of harmonious change.
But where does this biblical approach get us in a serious analysis of change in
schools? Let us first examine what is the source of change in contemporary society.
As you might expect I lay the blame on capitalism and the technological revolution.
By a technical revolution we are not simply talking about computers speeding up
production, we are not talking about tinkering with employment patterns where
production remains the same, investment is in plant, the workforce is reduced
and changed from unskilled to skilled. Although in themselves these changes are
radical they nowhere near explain the depth of change in society caused by
technology - that depth I am referring to as the Technological REVOLUTION.
"Capital is no longer restricted by time or place or labour. .... It can take up its plant
and walk to any part of the world where labour is cheap and captive and plentiful,
moving from one labour pool to another, extracting absolute surplus value"
"Everything is much more flexible now, much more fluid." The importance is not now
"the international division of labour but the international alliance of capital."
[Sivanandan p4] "And the money is in technology" [Sivanandan p5]
And this technological revolution has serious political overtones. "Information is not
only a factor of production ... but also a factor in social communication and political
discourse. The term information society should be understood to mean both the
information fed into machines to produce commodities and the information fed to
people to produce cultural homogeneity, political consensus etc. Those who control
the means of communication control also the economic, the cultural and the political".
It is not only "the ownership of the means of production but the ownership of the
means of communication". We have a "centralisation of power behind a democratic
I have here tried to establish that the nature of change in contemporary society is not
based on harmony, it is based on exploitation and profit. Referring to the above
cycles of nature this technological revolution, the current change, is a block, it is a
truncation of the cycle.
And this information revolution is at the basis of change in education. "Intellectuals
hold a key position in the Information society, and their ideas are certainly the
fashionable ideas. ... Look at some of their ideas: history is over, no more
contradictions to capitalism, ... post-coloniality is a condition and bears no relation to
poverty, ...." [Sivanandan p11]. When asked does he have it in for post-modernists,
he answered "Not just for post-modernism but for most of the intellectual currents that
the technological revolution has given rise to"[Sivanandan p10].
"It is no exaggeration to say that dealing with change is endemic to post-modern
society" [Fullan1 p3]. Do you see where I'm leading? Change is a harmonious
constant but the technological revolution, engendering post-modernist ideology, is
governing change in education. But that educational change has no moral basis it
has at its basis the absolute surplus value of the new International Alliance of Capital.
Although I would fully support an educational direction based on morality when Fullan
says "managing moral purpose and change agentry is at the heart of productive
educational change"[Fullan1 p8], he is fundamentally fighting the very source of the
direction of the change, because for capitalism morality is an occasional by-product
and in general an absolute contradiction.
However recognising and coping with such fundamental contradictions in education is
a hidden? theme of the whole of my professional autobiography. Having, in my view,
exposed this fundamental fallacy in Fullan's approach I would like to continue to
analyse, I would like to espouse what is otherwise an excellent approach to change.
In fact in many ways the analysis so far is a waste of time, whether it is correct or not.
Capitalism is here to stay, certainly within my lifetime. Because of this the constant of
harmonious change has to be based on the most harmonious ways of dealing with
capitalist excesses. Perhaps the capitulation of post-modernist intellectualism is a
marxist pragmatism from a historically materialistic analysis?
What is clear in all this defeatist talk is if educationalists can influence the direction of
educational change by moral purpose, then all those who are serious about
improving education must try and support this - in my view.
IS THIS A CHANGE?
The constant is harmonious change. "What will be needed" in a changing world "is
the individual as inquirer and learner, mastery and know-how as prime strategies, the
leader who expresses but also extends what is valued enabling others to do the
same, team work and shared purpose which accepts both individualism and
collectivism as essential to organisational learning, and the organisation which is
dynamically connected to its environment because that is necessary to avoid
extinction as environments are always changing"[Fullan1 p viii].
"Teachers' capacities to deal with change, learn from it, and help students learn from
it will be critical for the future development of societies"[Fullan1 p ix]. Whilst in no way
trying to demean the quality of Fullan's approach, is he asking for a change? Or is he
simply asking for what people have been asking throughout the centuries?
Please consider Part 2A Section 2 of Reflection-in-Action which I have include as
Appendix 3A for ease of reference. When considering Fullan's approach to change I
felt deja-vu, although not exactly the same I felt that Fullan's change is investigating
the same areas of quality and artistry that Schon investigated. And my concerns
about Schon I then felt applied equally to Fullan. Does he present his approach as a
panacea? Are his notions of inquirer, learner, mastery and know-how any different?
Not really! Replace Schon below by Fullan, does it make sense?
In fact to be quite honest I feel that Schon only touches on areas which have been
expanded into much wider concepts such as expressed in Capra's Turning
Point or Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters or Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
I looked at the rest of my section 2, and although direct translation from artistry to
change agentry did not strictly apply, I have no doubts in my mind that the demands
of religion, mysticism, Don Juan - the Yaqui Master, have easy transposition in
Fullan's requirement of a change agent.
"I define change agentry as being self-conscious about the nature of change and the
change process. Those skilled in change are appreciative of its semi-unpredictable
and volatile character, and they are explicitly concerned with the pursuit of ideas and
competencies for coping with and influencing more and more aspects of the process
toward some desired set of ends. They are open, moreover, to discovering new ends
as the journey unfolds." Is this a sage talking about life? Is this the Tao Te Ching with
the Tao replaced by the word change?
The way(Tao) never acts yet nothing is left undone.
Should lords and princes be able to hold fast to it,
The myriad creatures will be transformed of their own accord.
Lao Tzu XXXVII[p96]
I see this as a non-academic way of writing change or evolution as a process, change
is natural and a wise person recognises the change process copes with it perceiving
its semi-unpredictable and volatile character being open to new ends as the journey
Let me be clear I am not trying to belittle Fullan(or Schon), I am pleased that they are
part of the academic process but they are only tapping into the wisdom of the ages,
and they and others in the system, including myself, should be endlessly trying to tap
that source. This process would make them a Change Agent, a Reflective
Practitioner, a Person of Quality, a Person who follows the True Path, a Sage, a
Master, a Person of Virtue, an Enlightened Person, and many other names of the
Wise and Soulful.
But it is dangerous to demand of teachers that they all be wise, it is dangerous to
build a system on the basis that all the people in that system are enlightened. No
such system would be needed for the wise, their wisdom would be the structure.
We want our teachers to be wise - change agents or any other terminology, but we
are not prepared to reward their wisdom financially nor do we offer any other form of
reward, the reward of being recognised as the elder or wise in society, the reward of
seeing a society develop because of the education process, not even the reward of
being recognised as doing a worthwhile job. It is true that many teachers would like
these rewards, these are the rewards of the vocation they started with but because
the system never offers any of this the reward they ultimately want is the usual one -
the pay packet that allows them to look after their families. I have to disagree with
Fullan and Hargreaves[p33] when they say "The greatest satisfaction of primary
school teaching are found not in pay, prestige or promotion but in what ..... are called
psychic rewards." Although I have taken this slightly out of context, in my experience
(which is limited in terms of contact with primary teachers) this statement completely
misunderstands the teacher. Most teachers used to start off with a vocation[*2], but
because they become disillusioned with what motivated their vocation then the pay
packet becomes the most important motivator, but they continue to pay lip-service to
the more educational motivations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And I cite for
this one important factor to illustrate - the strikes. The only issue which will lead to
strike action is pay so the only issue that teachers are prepared to fight over with their
livelihood is the salary. Having said that, educational motivation is very important, and
it is also why teachers, like nurses, are open to exploitation with their low salaries.
Wise teachers are not going to work all hours of the day in a job that neither offers
them financial nor spiritual rewards so where do we get the change agents? There is
no doubt in my mind that a change agent or a wise person should be the teacher in
society if that society has any mind to a sensible future, but dominant forces are more
interested in short term gain than future reward - a stable and pleasant society.
When I ask "Is it a change?", I feel the answer is No, but I do feel that the agenda is
the correct one and would fully support it. I now wish to examine what is the
meaning of change so that when the issue of practical change is considered in
section 9B it will be clear that I am considering change and not tinkering. And to
examine this meaning I shall consider the approach developed by Fullan in his book
"The Meaning of Educational Change".
Sampling from The Meaning of Educational Change
Fullan begins by examining the sources of educational change and utilises the
phrase innovation establishment. To his credit he disparages many people in this
establishment. "I do not know of any systematic studies of the career patterns of
'innovative superintendents' but there are too many case-study examples which
indicate that one of the main consequences of introducing innovations is career
advancement for the sponsor" [Fullan2 pp15-16]. He also "draws a similar
conclusion: that the reason the reform movement failed was 'the fact that its prime
movers were distinguished university scholars'". Throughout this chapter(Ch 2)he
describes different situations where the source of change was ill-conceived in one
form or another but he does not explicitly state that the problem is the fact that there
is an innovation establishment; this is my contention.
Suppose I am a staff development officer or adviser(or whatever term is the vogue)
and that my primary function is innovation of some form then what do I do in my job?
At my annual review(or equivalent time) can I justify my position to the reviewers by
saying that I provided support for the teachers at X & Y & Z school and that the
teachers were satisfied. Even if I could prove such satisfaction would the review
board be happy; I contend no. Along comes a whizz kid with a very nice DTP report
with a slap-bang-wallop project that involves all the latest gimics and buzz-words then
the review board will look favourably on the whizz-kid because they can then go to
their bosses and say "Look at the slap-bang-wallop project we are introducing,
doesn't it look good?" Then the next educational journal has an article on "The
Introduction of Slap-Bang-Wallop at Z school" by Whizz-Kid thanking the education
authority or the school governing board for their support. Everybody appears to be
happy and Whizz-Kid becomes a staff development officer in another authority.
And the result is the end of the Fullan quote on p16 - "subsequent failed
implementation of the innovation". And who gets the blame? The whizz-kid? No, he is
part of the establishment now, the education authority and the school authority are
also the establishment, so who gets the blame? The teachers in the school, the
teachers who are already working 60 hours a week for a fraction of the salary of the
promoted whizz-kid, a fraction of the salary of the education officers who spent years
trying to get out of the classroom - the job of the people they are now criticising.
To a certain extent Fullan is part of this innovation establishment (as is D Macleod -
failed my M Ed??). What are the criteria by which their success is judged? Is it
whether the chain of people who read Fullan's books actually produce better
education? No, but I agree that is an unfair criterion. No, Fullan is also judged by his
academic acclaim and printed works.
As I am very impressed by Fullan's works and feel that they are a positive
contribution to the education process (as I am by D Macleod - passed my M Ed??)
then the problem lies elsewhere, and that is the job structure. The main focus of
innovation work has to be the education institution itself but it has to be from the
inside of the institution. The source of the change has to be the staff themselves, they
know what needs changing. Many of the legions of outside experts should disappear
and teachers be given proper time to be professionals, to read educational journals
and contribute to them, to instigate their own changes. The process for this is a
radical change of the existing staff development job structure, but this cannot happen.
Why? Because the people who have the jobs already would be sacking themselves.
Somehow the educational focus has to return to the classroom. Lessons are
fundamentally routine for the more experienced teachers but that is not to say they
are bad. For myself a lesson I deliver now is better than lessons I delivered 15 years
ago although many are not prepared very well. Why don't I prepare better lessons
now? What is the incentive? Will my head say "Bill, that lesson was good. I have
been noticing you have been improving the quality of your lessons. Here is a free
ticket for a week in a mokoro in the Okavango. Congratulations." But if I were the
whizz-kid running the slap-bang-wallop project a careerist head would make sure that
I was delivering INSET on the project ensuring that her/his name was mentioned as
well as the school.
Whilst I am being blunt let me also be appeasing. Where does the fault lie? Is
Donovan's Universal Soldier at fault for war? My mother worked for Bayer, should
she have resigned because of their connections with concentration camps? Should
the manager of the multinational refuse to follow a company policy that
disadvantages Third World countries? Should the factory-floor worker at Nestle's
resign because of the Baby Food problem in Africa? Should the teacher resign
because education is part of the capitalist system? Should the staff-developer resign
because staff development doesn't focus on the needs of the teachers and students?
All of these are real dilemmas which people face and there are no global answers.
There are plenty of young political people who, from the outside, have clear answers,
particularly students in the 60's and 70's. But they never asked questions concerning
the money that was paying for their education. How many of those are still living in
the West where the disparities between the First and Third World are so gross and
are based historically on slavery and colonial exploitation, and which are maintained
by the same neo-colonial spirit? And yet in the Third World there are a host of other
problems which militate against any easy solution for the conscience.
Dilemmas!? Yet as an academic neophyte I can ask the questions without any need
or justification to provide an answer??
To return to the issue of the dilemma of change. Fundamentally the education
establishment and the money that finances it is totally upside-down, and judging by
my own feelings I would say that there will be great unspoken resistance to changing
that for the simple reason that older people who have escaped the stress of the
classroom would ultimately be forced back into the classroom, and thus increase their
chance of illness and even worsen the already shocking actuarial figures for the
teaching profession. Fundamentally the failings of the source of education change will
continue; any recognition of the above does not have any dynamics for change
because the recognition is true but lip-service and is based on guilt not on a burning
desire for change.
Well there is one way in which such a change can happen and that is that
classroom-teaching be given the highest reward, rewards be given to make the
changes. If time and money are thrown at the implementation of innovations change
will occur in the classroom. Such a situation is not totally infeasible because teaching
should be a fulfilling and elevating activity exemplified by Pirsig's passion for the
process. As such older members of the profession might still want classroom
involvement but not in the current context where the teacher is the brunt of the woes
of the establishment as well as their representative in coping with delinquent abuse.
The roles of some of the outside legions must still exist but the financial emphasis
must be altered to focus on the classroom. But then quality education needs to be
valued by society, and we could go on and on and on about exam structures, what is
the meaning of education, what is the influence of business, is the "reserve army of
the unemployed" a by-product or an essential of the education system?
To conclude, I feel that the focus of change is completely wrong but I cannot see it
changing because of the vested interest, intentional or otherwise, of the innovation
establishment, so the sources, I feel, will continue to be misdirected. Perhaps the
best approach to change is to accept Fullan's conclusion[Fullan2 p6] "that many
decisions about the kinds of educational innovations introduced in school districts are
biased, poorly thought out, and unconnected to the stated purposes of education",
and hope that by asking the central questions quoted by Fullan2 [p18] from
Silberman[p 182] will bring at least some benefits, progress instead of innovation for
the sake of change and career:-
"What is education for? What kind of human beings and what kind of
society do we want to produce? What methods of instruction and
classroom organisation as well as what subject matter do we need to
produce these results? What knowledge is of most worth?"
But as usual with such partial conclusions based on education theory the
import of the teacher is partially negated and the focus is too much on theory and not
on the rewards of good practice.
Before investigating the full meaning of educational change I want to consider some
principles which could be considered as part of the nature of a truly democratic
process. Voting does not guarantee democracy. Two clones stand for parliament,
one smiles nicely, wears a blue pin-stripe suit and a cultured silk tie, the other wears
a dark blue suit and glasses and attempts to be innocuous, which clone do you vote
So you ask what policies they represent? And the clones lie because they are scared
of telling the truth because the media will not report with integrity but would prefer to
distort for commercialism. So you vote for the clone with the nicer pin-stripe.
A key principle for democracy is the full flow of information allowing individuals the
liberty to make their own informed decision. So what about people who cannot
understand the information when given? It is the responsibility of a democratic
process to educate people so that they do understand this information. That is not to
say that all people need to understand everything but within the arena of their enquiry
they need to understand.
Who are they voting for? A representative, they want someone to represent their
interests in government. So their vote is saying I authorise you to act in my interests.
But what happens if the representative doesn't? Some would say withdraw your vote
but that takes a long time. An important principle of democracy ought to be on-going
accountability so that if a member of the voting body is dissatisfied then their
representative needs to justify their actions. If sufficient people are dissatisfied with
their representation then they find other forms of protest such as mass action forcing
a referendum but in a proper democracy such mass action ought to be unlikely.
If the above processes are carried out then the individual voters will have their
interests represented, they will be aware of the decisions being taken and why, and
because of the ongoing information and accountability should feel satisfied in
participating in the democracy and the policies of the system they are a part of.
So in this superficial examination of democracy I have developed the following
1) Full information
2) Awareness to understand the information
4) On-going accountability
5) Participation in the policies of the representative body.
I would maintain that these principles of democracy could be applied to the
implementation of change. Teachers need to be informed about the implementation
of the change, and they need to be aware of the issues concerning this change such
as why the need for the change, how it involves the teachers, what the job
impositions are. They need to feel that the implementation of the change involves
them either by their being a representative in the decision-making or that they have a
representative on the decision-making body itself, and that they have sufficient
access to that person to make their views known and possibly implemented. If these
aspects of the change process are to the teacher's satisfaction then they should
implement the policy of the representative decision-making body, either by desire or
through professionalism - job discipline. Such a decision-making body could be a
steering group (see section 8C).
Fullan2[p25] quotes "at some length one of the most revealing and fundamental
passages" from Marris p166:-
'No one can resolve the crisis of reintegration on behalf of another. Every
attempt to pre-empt conflict, argument, protest by rational planning, can
only be abortive: however reasonable the proposed changes, the process
of implementing them must still allow the impulse of rejection to play itself
out. When those who have power to manipulate changes act as if they
have only to explain, and when their explanations are not at once
accepted, shrug off opposition as ignorance or prejudice, they express a
profound contempt for the meaning of lives other than their own. For the
reformers have already assimilated these changes to their purposes, and
worked out a reformulation which makes sense to them, perhaps through
months or years of analysis and debate. If they deny others the chance to
do the same, they treat them as puppets dangling by the threads of their
Now consider how the above principles of democracy applied to a steering group
whose remit is a proposed change actually resolves the issues raised by Marris.
Firstly the processes of conflict and argument are not aborted but incorporated
through the processes of information and awareness on the one hand and through
representation on the other. Overcoming rejection is an integral part of the awareness
training. Explanation is part of the information process but awareness training allows
for that explanation to be interpreted, grappled with, analysed, debated and hopefully
eventually assimilated. To summarise, a steering group would only dangle puppets if
they ignored the above democratic principles the group was premised on.
A teaching group is mixed ability no matter how homogeneous you try to make them,
and this applies to teachers as well as students. When a change is proposed the
understanding of such a change will differ amongst the teachers. To require all
teachers to function at the same level of understanding concerning that change will
limit the process of change because that level can only be the lowest common
denominator. A process of change can only provide a dynamic in which the differing
constituents flow at their own pace, but the process of change can provide its own
incentives to encourage people to increase their speed and these incentives need not
be connected with the change itself. These motivations can be financial, time-release,
career evolution or perhaps even educational but the most important aspect of this
change is that the policy for the implementation of change must contain this change
dynamic; at its worst this dynamic could be the hierarchical imperative.
There is no point in beginning a process of change if the implementers of that change
don't have to do it, how can you expect a heterogeneous group to function in the
same way? But establishing a change dynamic is not sufficient because the dynamic
can cause a conflict. Teachers not wishing to participate in that particular change
process but recognising the dynamic as being important are then in conflict - they feel
they have to do something they don't believe in. Here is the importance of the
awareness training - the staff development programme for that change. This allows
the individual to confront her/his conflict with the change ideology, and if the
individual is willing to compromise (s)he can at least find a heuristic method of
"Change is multidimensional and can vary accordingly within the same person as well
as within groups. Second there are some deep changes at stake, once we realise
that people's basic conceptions of education and skills are involved - that is, their
occupational identity, their sense of competence, and their self-concept. The need
and difficulty for individuals to develop a sense of meaning about change is manifest.
Third, compounding the second lesson is the fact that change consists of a
sophisticated and none-too-clear dynamic interrelationship of the three dimensions of
change"[Fullan2 p33]. These three dimensions of change are described on Fullan2
1) The possible use of new or revised materials
2) The possible use of new teaching approaches
3) The possible alteration of beliefs
In coping with the change dynamic the individual in conflict can choose to participate
in the process through one of the three dimensions either actively or simply
perfunctorily, and many professional experienced teachers, through a perfunctory use
of materials, can achieve more than the most evangelical.
"The use of new materials by themselves may accomplish certain educational
objectives, but it seems obvious that developing new teaching skills and approaches
and understanding conceptually what and why something should be done, and to
what end, represents much more fundamental change, and as such takes
longer"[Fullan2 p35]. Awareness training is not a process that ends, it need not be
formal but it does need to continue. People working on new materials and
approaches need to be able to share their experiences, be supported through
difficulties or simply be reassured.
In this part of the autobiography I have examined change. Beginning with the
time-honoured wisdom of the "constant of harmonious change" I tried to establish the
necessity of participating in change as evolution countering it with stagnation that
could lead to revolution. Then by examining a sample of the book "The Meaning of
Educational Change" I tried to show that change cannot properly be directed from
outside the education institution itself, the motivation and direction needs to come
from the institution itself. Then I tried to demonstrate that the change process should
be most appropriately carried out by a properly constituted steering group guided by
certain democratic principles. Following this I developed the theme of a change
dynamic and that the concept of the change is not sufficient no matter how"correct"
some might consider the change. And finally I considered the differing realities that
teachers would bring to the change process, and the importance of awareness
training in helping these teachers deal with change.
In part 9B I consider the application of change from a trade union perspective and
conclude with a blueprint of practice on "How to make Toxteth Comprehensive an
Anti-Racist School" with an analysis in part 9C based on the Eight Lessons of the
New Paradigm of Change discussed in Fullan1. The journey followed in that blueprint
is based on the change philosophy developed in this part.
[*1] According to the I Ching - the Book of Changes, "Lao Tse (Tzu - BZ) knew this book,
and some of his profoundest aphorisms were inspired by it".[Wilhelm pliv]
[*2] In the UK this is perhaps not true. There is a new breed of teacher, the teacher who
has chosen the profession because it offers job security in a failing economy.
PART 3 - REFERENCES
Capra F "The Turning Point" Flamingo 1982 ISBN 0 00 654017 1
Castaneda C "The Teachings of Don Juan" and others.
Fullan1 Fullan M "Change Forces" Falmer 1993. ISBN 1 85000 825 6.
Fullan2 Fullan M M "The Meaning of Educational Change" OISE Press 1982.
Fullan M & "What's Worth Fighting for in Schools?" Open University Press
Hargreaves A 1992. ISBN 0-335-15755-6.
Lao Tzu "Tao Te Ching" Penguin 1963. ISBN 0 14 04.131 X
Marris P "Loss and Change" Anchor Press/Doubleday 1975
Pirsig R "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" Vintage
Schon D "The Reflective Practitioner" Basic 1983. ISBN 0-465-06878-2
Sivanandan A "Heresies and Prophecies: the social and political fall-out of the
technological revolution" Article in Race & Class Vol37 #4 1996
International Race Relations ISSN 0306-3968
Silberman C "Crisis in the Classroom" Vintage Books 1970.
Sorokin P "Social & Cultural Dynamics" American Book Company
Toynbee A "A Study of History" Oxford University Press
Wilhelm R "I Ching" Routledge & Kegan Paul 1968 ISBN 0 7100 1581 X
Zukav G "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" Fontana 1979 ISBN
Reader - Do you want to go back to the contents page?pbcontents.htm
Or read the next part? part4.htm