trans91316.docx

26



A conceptual design for transforming schools: Creating spaces of difference
It is difficult to think about educational change never mind transformation in the "Age of Trump." This is an age where racism, sexism and abuse, homophobia and widening economic divides are accepted as part and parcel of a way forward.(Ferlaino, 2016) While this retrenchment is reprehensible, it can be the fuel that focuses attention and motivation on how to transform schooling because only the institution of schooling can in fundamental ways energize our democratic sensibilities and challenge these horrific cultural and economic divides. We take up this possibility to transform schooling in this essay as opposed to nipping and tucking the system (Bowles & Gintis, 1989). This essay takes up the issue of transformation by first articulating what we mean by transformation and our pragmatic goal to create spaces of difference. We then try to provide more exemplars of our conceptual design by comparing it to a dominant ideology that has significantly shaped schooling—standardization and as means to achieve desired ends.
Transformation
We begin by considering the nature and significance of our alternative view of change—the transformation of schooling. As commonly defined, transformation is a "[m]metamorphosis", [which] is a classic example of transformation" (Gass, p.1). Understood in this way, transformation is a type of profound change that alters the very nature of something—such as a change from cocoon to butterfly—a metamorphosis. While helpful, this classic definition is ambiguous and leaves in the shadows values and ambitions that are needed to distinguish transformation from other reforms both progressive and not so progressive.
For our purposes, therefore, transformation needs to have a more precise outline and a first step in filling in this outline is to articulate its radical sustainability. The connection of transformation with sustainability, in particular, is often overlooked in favor of its potential radical nature (Gass, 2012). Sustainability, however, is critical if change is to be seen as something leading one beyond the significant limits found in the status quo (Freire, 2001). For something that is transformed can never go back to being exactly what it was before. By making the status quo the baseline for change, transformation, in our view, takes on a political tone in that it suggests that a dominant view or what is normal and most highly valued—the status quo—needs to be constantly worked on and re-worked. However, this work must not simply produce a minor change that at a macro –level gets subsumed into what is now dominant but actually limits dominance and extends inclusive possibilities that are sustained long enough to be seen as a significant change from the is to a new ought (Marcuse, 1968). For example, if we relate this to creating spaces of difference, if these spaces are to be transformative they must help shape sustainable and alternative practices, relations, and structures that are different from those found within the context of the status quo. Transformation, seen in this way, avoids a determinist teleology that predicts an unknown future. Conversely, it avoids a relativist hole that allows for an unlimited number of landing points for transformation, some of which might actually be worst then the status quo (Young, 2011). And how does it avoid landing points that might actually be worst?
To begin to explore landing points in more depth it is important to note that the processes of transformation can't be separated from the products of transformation. For us, this process/product is one of freedom. It is a type of freedom that requires one to have a great deal of autonomy about the choices made. (Sartre, 1956). For example, if one grows up in a country with few well paying jobs, nor many jobs that can support a family, nor any safety nets for those who have not been able to get any of those jobs, then your choice of where you can go, what you can eat, the type of shelter you have for your family, amongst many other choices are extremely constrained (Sandel, 2009). In this example, the material conditions stand in opposition to our notion of freedom for particular cultural groups (Fine & Halkovic, 2014). To challenge the way material realities can limit freedom to choose, our view of freedom insists that an inherent part of choice and therefore freedom is having the opportunity to make a wide range of choices (Sartre, 1956). And where this is limited, material conditions need to be changed a priori to create a wider range of choices for particular cultural groups.
And yet this possibility for more individuals and cultural groups to have a wide range of choices is not sufficient to satisfy our notion of freedom because freedom must account for more than the process of moving out in a sustained way from the status quo. It needs to also consider the landing points of freedom or put differently what this freedom achieves in terms of a set of possibilities that were not possible in the previous space known as the status quo. One way to approach the question of achievement is to think through the issue of "success", or how to turn your freedom to choose into a successful result. For example, if a school's merit system requires a particular cultural group to abandon some long held core values while other cultural groups need only express long held values, success is constructed unevenly such that certain cultural groups have to confront what they hold as near and dear to them (Willis, 1977). Choice, as a starting point for freedom from, needs to work hand in hand with views of success in schooling such that success is not based on the assimilation of dominant values (Freire, 2001). Put more directly, choice needs to be as inclusive as notions of success are, to turn opportunities into achievements that express possibilities for transformation.
Another way to look at freedom's landing points is to suggest that regardless of the landing point, this point or result should shrink disparities such as those between the rich and poor, the black and white, women and men, etc. Shrinking disparities suggests an important additional move such that even if a landing point is good for one group, if at the same time it creates greater disparities between groups, the result of freedom is seen as unsuccessful for all. Only results or landing points that increase success for a particular group and shrink disparities across groups, suggest successful freedom. In fact, if the result or landing point is unsuccessful, freedom so called, is not freedom at all but rather a charade in which dominance and the status quo are reinforced (Blau, 2007). The shrinking of disparities, in turn is predicated on having a diverse view of choices, changes in material conditions that make more inclusive the possible choices particular marginalized cultures have, and a merit approach or assessment of success, that does not hinder certain groups simply because they differ from dominant, widely accepted norms and cultures (Fine, 1989). And when this notion of freedom is in place the common good (shirking of disparities) must go hand in hand with the success of a particular cultural group.
In sum, transformation must be fueled by a type of freedom that challenges the traditional model of assimilation and replaces it with a diverse inclusive model of multiple legitimate landing points that signify accepted cultural norms, customs and behaviors (Gass, 2012). It should always be acceptable to be yourself (or ourselves) as a pathway to success and of course not be negatively judged because you are a member of this culture or that. And when a group is successful and this group furthers disparities and hierarchy but only is freedom denied but the transformative possibilities of the result are challenged as the status quo reigns supreme. However, it is important to note that not everyone in this transformed society will have to embrace the same notion of success and not everyone will succeed but everyone will have an opportunity to authentically choose (from a variety of choices that emerge from levels of materiality that make choice possible) without sacrificing or being penalized by cultural identities. And success will never be seen as moving against the common good. In this way, transformation, in our view, is a sustained turn as opposed to an extension, a short-term fix, or a patch that is overwhelmed by the dominant. It is a turn but not a final solution. The sad truth is that there are no final solutions only a continuous process with sustained turns.
Spaces of Difference
With our view of transformation now articulated, we turn to the issue of creating spaces of difference as a transformative project. It is difficult to consider this issue without discussing the important work of Heidegger. In his pivotal work Being and time, Heidegger (1962) lays out his view of phenomenology– the study of phenomena. Phenomena come from the Greek word meaning "things that appear" (Oxford English Dictionary). In thinking about how things appear, Heidegger takes an unconventional starting point—that of being—or or in his way to articulating it, what does it mean for an entity (living and non-living) to be? (Heidegger, 1962) In answering this question, he begins by urging the observer to remove all intellectual clutter (i.e., remove past philosophical reasoning and assumptions) and pay attention to phenomena and the way entities reveal themselves to you (Heidegger, 1962). Heidegger adds to this "clearing" prior to observation, the notion that phenomena can only be observed as they take place in everyday life as opposed to the contrived philosophical scenarios of past philosophers—such as an individual contemplating something very deep while sitting by the fire. By focusing on "everydayness," Heiddeger (1962) is able to take up the question of the nature of phenomena in everyday life by asking another a priori question–what does it mean for a phenomena to be in a particular context? By seeing the world (our largest earthly context) and being as intimately linked, Heidegger comes up with the foundation for phenomenology–Dasein or "being in the world" (Heidegger, 1962, p. 150). While the exact meaning of Dasein is in some depute, it is clear that in observing phenomena, the observer can't separate being from the spaces in which the being becomes over time (Heidegger, 1962).
So what does "being in the world" look like as a guiding principle for an observer? Heidegger answers this question by using the following exemplar: "If I hold a hammer, it is not normally to stare at the hammer–it is to go to work hammering nails. [One] hammers nails in service of some purpose, such as building a bookcase. The hammer in my hand summons up a whole network of purposes and contexts such as producing something, using something, looking after something, etc" ( Heidegger, 1962, p. 102) To begin to understand phenomena, therefore, the observer might note the connection between the hammer and hand. It is clear that the hammer and the hand cease to be independent entities. Each one influences the other to a degree that both are changed. The hammer empowers the hand to push the nail into the wood of the bookcase. And the hand moves the hammer to provide the force to push the nail into the wood. In this way, the hammer, in the hand, does something (push nails into wood) that neither could do without the other. The results of this two-way influence between hammer and hand are also influenced by the context or space in which the hammering takes place. For example, if the bookcase constructed in the above example is put in a room by a broken windowpane, over time that broken pane will let in rain that falls on the bookcase. This moisture, in turn, is likely to weaken the wood and might cause the books to fall and crash on the floor of the room. In this way, the space influences the bookcase as a man-made entity. On the other hand, the bookcase also influences the space in the room, because the bookcase takes up room making other spaces less accessible and by absorbing the moisture from the rain this moisture doesn't fall on the floor and therefore the floor may be stronger than if the bookcase was not there. Heiddeger's approach to how things appear, his phenomenology includes the two-way intimate connection between space and entity that is studied in everyday life with a clear unfiltered point of view, especially as concerns past philosophical assumptions.
As we consider the issue of creating spaces of difference, Heiddeger's insights become central to our thinking. We don't want to view space, for example, as a commodity that exists and has these characteristics. Instead, a space of education in particular, is an evolving phenomenon that is influenced by practices introduced by students, administrators and teachers/professors as the student, administrators and teacher/professor actions of all kinds are influenced by the space.
While Heiddeger is able to show the intimate relation between space and being, however, we must rely on Lefebvre (2014) to provide a bit of complexity to the two way relation of Dasein. In particular, Lefebvre looks at the relation between production and product for the entities that are not living. Lefebvre agrees with Heiddeger that the space influences production (meaning human production) of products and the products influence the production of the space. The production process, however, produces two categories of "things" works and products The difference between the two being that "products can be reproduced and are in fact the result of repetitive acts and gestures while works can't be reproduced because each one has something unique and irreplaceable about it" (Lefebvre, 2014, p. 70). This human production of works and products can be contrasted with nature that doesn't produce at all—nature always creates beings and these beings are always works as opposed to products (Lefebvre, 2014). In this way, nature is a unique creative producer of works while human production is often about replicable products. It this sense, human production of products stands in opposition to nature's creative production of unique works. What is so telling about Lefebvre's insights is we can now go beyond Heiddeger's focus on entities by considering two types of entities: those that are created and unique and those that are produced and are mostly identical. For our focus on education, we now have a critical lens to look at the space of schooling to see where it produces repetitive acts, gestures, student work and relationships and/or the creation of "works" that are irreplaceable and unique.
Lefebvre begins our process of adopting and going beyond a Heiddegierian phenomenology by adding a more overtly political outcome that compels us to look at relations within a space and how products and works shape this space in differing or even oppositional ways. This suggests a more political and detailed look at phenomena within a space. Further, given our view of transformation we need to go beyond Heiddeger's focus on understanding phenomena to an activist/understanding that results in a metamorphosis of sustained radical change from the status and a more equal society. We are trying to move toward, therefore, a type of transformative phenomenology that connects understanding, activism, and a critical assessment of change (this is where Lefebvre's works and products is essential), and then works back toward understanding in a continuous cycle of inquiry (Gitlin.) The importance of this cycle is that the critical inquiry process can challenge the way our perception and consciousness seeks a unity in terms of what is seen (Bernet, Kern, & Marbach, 1993). Once this seeking is understood as a distorted perception, it can be challenged allowing "each moment in time to be a surprise" (Bernet et. al. 1993, p.130). And this surprise itself challenges the commonsense view that there is an absolute and objective reality and allows for a transformative change that provides the opportunity for success through freedom of choices for those who have been marginalized. With an objective and absolute reality in doubt, critical attention to consciousness and perception becomes a central focus to unearth the surprise that "steps" toward developing a transformative phenomenology.
Heidegger and Lefebvre have taken us quite a distance down the path of understanding spaces, yet it has not adequately addressed our focus on difference. We turn now to this issue and its place in our transformative phenomenology. To get a more nuanced account of space, that includes difference the work of Steven Johnson (2010), Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation has proven particularly, influential. Johnson's text begins with what he refers to as Darwin's paradox. The paradox emerges as Darwin, in April 1836, approaches the Keeling Islands and comes upon a coral reef that rings the island. What Darwin observes is the infinite numbers of organic beings living within the reef. This infinite number is contrasted with the paltry, at best organic beings, on the island itself only several feet away. Darwin continues his exploration by moving to the windward side of the island where the surf crashes against the same coral with tremendous force. His focus, at this time, is not the power of the surf but rather the reefs resistance to the power of the surf. Initially, the reason for this resistance doesn't come to him but after further reflection Darwin realizes that it is the architecture of the reef that makes the difference between the teaming reef and the paltry number of organisms on the island (Johnson, 2010).
This descriptive account of Darwin's exploratory research suggests that survival and the wellbeing of the organism is related to the space in which these beings live. Specifically, it is the architecture that makes an important difference, an architecture that allows for connections that stick and can then re-attach such that there is a continuous fluidity between species. This attachment and reattachment across differences in species, in turn, allows these organisms to go beyond species specify limitations such that over time they develop symbiotic relations that enhance their chance of survival. As importantly, the best collaborations between species result in "designs" neither could have come up with alone (Johnson, 2010). Survival depends as much on the symbiotic relationship as the design of a space that could resist the "force of the surf". And when this particular design and symbiotic relationship no longer lead to survival the architectures continue to provide unlimited new combinations of species and therefore new architectural designs that over time could be more successful in holding back the power of the surf and therefore encouraging survival.
Darwin's observations not only reinforce the importance of conceptualizing space as a two-way relation with "being" (the being of entities within the space), but adds to this view the centrality of having continuous new designs for adjacent space/entities. When we use the term, adjacent spaces it does not necessarily mean the space bordering another space. Besides this physical bordering adjacent spaces also can mean can also mean a connected relation. For example, while the local community is almost always physically bordering the local school, a high school or community college may be virtually bordering a university such that high school students find their way into this particular institutions of higher education—the high school and the higher education institution are in relation and therefore are adjacent spaces.. If the relation between adjacent space/entities is ignored, the notion of spaces can't take into account the way one space/entity might dominant the other space/entity and in some cases destroy it. In Darwin's example, the adjacent spaces/entities are the reef and the water around the reef– the surf. In essence, the reef works with the surf and nature by employing a simple and effective way to deal with this powerful adjacent space–a continuous adjustment to the power of the surf such that connections across differences, that "stick", create new designs and those that endure over time produce and protect the reef's entities from the power of the surf.
Looked at from the point of view of schooling, this position suggests that the students, teachers, administrators, furniture, construction of the classroom within the school are in a two-way relation with the space of school that could include the building. Darwin's theory (along with Lefebvre) adds that it would be a mistake to ignore the adjacent spaces to the school building because these adjacent spaces might dominant and even destroy the entities, including students, who live in the building for a good part of their day. The space of school, for example, should consider the local space of community and put forth designs on the "skin" between these spaces that might help both students and the community flourish. The "skin is a new space that belongs to neither the community nor school but rather is a space specifically constructed to allow for connections and reconnections across differences between and among students, teachers, administrators and community members such that they produce symbiotic relations that go beyond the abilities of any one group or individual. At the same time, the skin/space should produce future designs and redesigns such that both the school and community can survive and thrive. For instance, it is vital to take into consideration possible new designs needed to ensure that the different cultural groups, in the school/community will have the opportunity to connect with each other. In this way, the common good is also the "good" of the most marginalized and excluded group, not only because of the importance of connections and reconnections but that success for one group, is part of a common good that diminishes disparities between cultural groups.
Johnson's account on Darwin's theory along with Heidegger's Dasein and Lefebvre's focus on products and works has taken us down the road a bit in terms of articulating a conceptual understanding of creating spaces, yet there is still the question of why our view of creating spaces of difference is an approach that can produce something better. Better always resides in an ethical, moral and political account of phenomena (Latour, 2005). Heidegger's accounts of Dasein, for example, appear to have no interest in addressing politics in any shape or form. Rather, his position is to "clear" the past so as to see the way phenomena truly appear in everyday life. Given Heidegger's Nazi affiliation (Gorner, 2007) one shouldn't be surprised that this theory tries to portray a neutral or non-political perspective. In this way, Heidegger's phenomenology could be compatible with conservative and repressive regimes as well as progressive one's. There is no way to even think that Heidegger's theory would lead to something better because he is not even trying to do so—his only goal is to understand phenomena not change what is observed (Gadamer, 2011). In contrast, one might want to clearly embed in one's theory a teleology of what has been and what is going to be in the future (Marx, 1956). While these deterministic theories are initially comforting as possible ways to produce a life that is better, they lock themselves into a narrow path that has been proven over and over to be too limited to foretell the future and lead to changes that can be sustained. If neither deterministic nor so-called neutral theories will help produce a sense of better—how can one even hope for better?
Our position starts with the assumption that we can't know the future and therefore can't lock our position into a narrow path. In contrast, we also resist relativism by taking a page from the long history of medical researchers trying to cure cancer (Bradley, 2016). For almost five decades, the common approach to cure cancer was to think of a particular type of cancer as being one of many types of cancer. The goal therefore was to find a cure for each type. But, in fact, not only did cancer come in infinite types, it also changed its "signature" depending on the body it entered. Cancer seemed incurable–it was too infinite. But current thinking has taken a new approach: experiment within the context of a particular body—the space for the cancer and see what works. These experiments are tested outside the body to see how certain medical cocktails influence cells from a particular body. If the experiment is promising—changes cancerous cells to non-cancerous cells it is tried in the body. The experiment continues as the body changes and as results are collected and when results look promising outside the body they are tested again within a body (Bradley, 2016, p. 50). This experimental approach uses data from the "cocktail/body" to revise and in some cases reconfigure the cocktail until an accepted degree of success is found.
This experimental approach has much in common with our design for transformation–the better we desire. Better, in an experimental sense, is a continuous process of experimentation. This is very much like what happens in nature where new designs are tried and those that are effective at holding off the "surf" from destroying the reef and the animals that live there is maintained until such a time that it is no longer effective. However, it is not a matter of trying anything, it is an experiment that emerges from an understanding of how schooling becomes what it is—our transformative phenomenology. An understanding that includes three significant assumptions: there is an intimate two-way relation between activity and space, there is a need for connections across differences that produce possibilities that move beyond the capabilities of a singular entity and the importance of seeing the two-way relation between adjacent spaces such that what happens within one space can be influenced by what happens outside of that space. Furthermore, the results of the experiment must be critically assessed in a political way that accounts for the values desired including the importance of connecting across differences. When these connections are successful that take us beyond our current limits as an individual, or group. The increased ability to creatively design new spaces, in turn, works hand in hand with a view of freedom that produces significant life choices, inclusive views of success and "entities" that are unique and works with the forces of nature, just as the adjacent spaces of the reef and surf work together. Given that the outside spaces will surely change in unknown ways as will the inside space itself, the process of new experiments never ends but rather adjusts to developments in the space under consideration and adjacent spaces until what is good for those most marginalized becomes the common good at the same time by reducing disparities between groups.
While our transformative phenomenology has some similarities with a Hegelian dialectic, the differences are profound and important in terms of understanding the details of our approach. Hegel's dialectic is the tool that links thought and action (Hegel, 1977), a linkage that is also represented in our transformative phenomenology. Hegel's dialectic was used by Marx as a form of dialectical materialism, a materialism that has some commonalities with our approach. With that said, our transformative phenomenology varies in some significant ways. The first is that Hegel's dialectical approach uses two oppositional positions to come up with a new synthesis. In contrast, our approach brings together differing groups, cultural or otherwise, such that this difference provides the fuel for either common ground across differences or few innovative ways to think about the problems and even what the problem is as well as the possibilities that would be likely to emerge if insights simply came from one homogenous group. Built into our transformative phenomenology, therefore, is the power of difference, the bringing together of cultural differences among other differences, to define and push change and transformation. By doing so, culture is elevated to a central position, something quite different from Hegel's dialectic that says little about culture and difference more generally. When Hegel does speak of culture, it is through "culture that the individual acquires standing and actuality… [and through individuality and actuality] that culture has the appearance of self-consciousness making it conform to reality" (Hegel, 1977, p.298-99). For Hegel culture supports the status quo and an "alienated world that is fixed and solid" (p.299) In direct contrast, our transformative phenomenology views culture as a direct source of knowledge. When alternative cultures or groups call on their experiential understanding in a communicative engagement, the newly created space that belongs to neither group fuels knowledge possibilities of a new unknown with unexpected insights. We are suggesting that difference—spaces of difference-- can create a "poetic act that has no past, at least no recent past in which its preparation and appearance could be followed …[as a result] the poetic image when it emerges into the consciousness is a direct product of the heart, soul and being of man (sic) (Bachelard, 1964, p.xi & xiv). This holistic view of a poetic understanding stands in direct contrast to a rationalism that emerges solely from the mind. Furthermore, this poetic understanding emerges from this newly created space between the differences not from a thesis, antithesis and new synthesis. Secondly, while Hegel's adaptation by Marx focused on economic materiality, our materiality is focused on the ability to participate in communicating across differences as well as having the economic well being to make this participation doing within the context of everyday life. In this way, our materiality is a pre-condition to begin the process of getting groups together to communicate—a democratic interest. Hegel's dialectic has no specific pre-condition. Finally, and importantly, where Hegel's dialectic eventually leads to a long-term historical materialism that can predict the future, our approach focuses in the short run on sustainability and in the long term about a continuous process of experimenting with ever changing designs for space that emerge from our differences. And it is this process that defines shapes and reshapes our transformative phenomenology.
Moving Toward the Ground
To dip a bit deeper into the archeology of our design for transforming schooling by creating spaces of difference, we switch from a focus on laying out the conceptual design directly to developing a comparative analysis. This comparative analysis will focus on a United States history. However, we don't feel this history only has relevance to the U.S. Instead, there is a plethora of evidence that much of what is said here is directly related to a more international or global perspective. In looking at U.S. school history we focus on one assumption that has dramatically shaped schooling: standardization.


Standardization
Standardization as Means
It is difficult to look at the history of the American school without seeing reform and standardization go hand in hand. When we say standardization, we are not limiting its application to standardized tests or even standardized content but rather various uses of standardization including the structure of the classroom, curriculum, and accountability (McNeil, 2000). Given our argument that standards as a means for problem solving has dominated the American school landscape, we now turn to the actual history of reform that used standardization as a central mean to a desired end.
Increasing Order
Traditionally, classrooms have had one setup: straight rows of desks facing the front of the classroom (Beery, Shell, Gillespie, & Werdman, 2013). The row style was seen as advantageous because it allowed teachers ample amount of space to walk around and therefore interact with many students (Professional Learning Board, n.d.) The row structure was also thought to make it easier for teachers to supervise the students' work and catch any students that may be misbehaving, insuring that students stay focused. Finally, studies had also indicated that the row style fosters less off topic talking causing the atmosphere to be more conducive to learning (Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). The structure of the space of the classroom was set up to standardize the behavior of the student to lead all students or as many as possible to act in more orderly ways in the classroom and thereby producing a better learning environment.
Looked at from a reform perspective, the problem that schools were trying to solve was and is keeping students on task and increasing order in the classroom. The solution is to standardize the classroom structure within a class and across all classes such that the space of learning would achieve the desired behavior. While all classrooms reflected this arrangement for over a century, currently this arrangement is only found in high schools and not all of them. Nevertheless, the architectural space of the classroom has been standardized throughout American school history as a consistent set of rows facing forward which supposedly increased a desired end—the order of the classroom. In this sense, standardization was used to encourage a narrow and compliant form of student behavior (McNeil, 2000). And because we are also interested in adjacent spaces, it is key to note much the same can be said for hospitals, prisons and other modern institutions (Foucault, 1995)
Sorting Students
Standardization, however, is not limited to the standardized architectural space of the classroom. By the mid-nineteenth century the standardized test was added to the structure of the classroom (Meier, 2002). Horace Mann, the single most important educator of this time, supervised the administration of the first iteration of a standardized test for 500+ students in the Boston schools (Meier, 2002). By 1900, Thorndike, known now as the father of educational testing, took the notion of standardization a step further by developing standardized, controlled and uniform scoring system for the standardized tests (Meier, 2002). Based on Throndike's work, Terman and Otis developed the first intelligence test for Army recruits. It wasn't long after that Terman created the now infamous Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) that measured intelligence quotient or IQ. By 1920 this test was made available to all public elementary schools, and became the benchmark by which students' academic potential was determined (Meier, 2002). Based on this potential, students across the country were tracked in honors, regular and special education tracks (Oakes, 2005).

School Accountability
At about this same time, 1950s-60s world events made all of this standardization inadequate to meet the new emergent purposes of schooling. The first event was the launching of Sputnik—the first satellite that could orbit in space. For the U. S. raised a major question—How could the Russians beat the American's in a scientific contest—a contest where in the past the U.S. ruled the day? (Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, & Carroll, 2002) As is typical of these sorts of political issues the blame was put squarely on schools. And if that was not motivation to change, one of the most influential papers was published on how the U.S. was a Nation at risk because it was failing behind other nations is terms of standardized international achievement tests (Schubert et al., 2002). These two events have spurred three federal programs, NCLB, Race to the Top and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), that beginning in 2001 tried to address the so called problems identified by the launch of Spuknik and the decline of our international competitive edge measured on standardized achievement tests (Ravitch, 2011). The key change in this variation of standardization is that instead of solving a direct problem like how to improve classroom order of how to deliver a more efficient curriculum, these standardized tests set up a competition between schools in a particular district and the teachers within those district schools. Specially, all students in a district would be tested at regular intervals. Based primarily on these standardized –and now called high stakes—tests the schools in a district where then ranked, and based on this ranking certain schools had to make test score gains in a particular number of years. Finally, if they did not make these gains the school could be closed or in less extreme situations the teachers could be forced out of teaching or at least transferred to other schools (Ravitch, 2011). In this way, the standardized tests became a means to shape school and teacher accountability. Teachers in particular were viewed as responsible for how students did on these tests. The obvious limit of this use of standardization for accountability is that teachers are made accountable for results that are beyond the control. Put directly, even if the tests were accurate, learning and achievement are related to home support, the relation between home and school culture, the relation of the curriculum to the intrinsic interests of the student and to the obligations certain students have to work and support their families. In this sense, teachers are held accountable for factors that are beyond their control and therefore finding they must teach to the test not the student (Ravitch, 2011).
In sum, while there are exceptions to the use of standardization to reform schooling, it surely was and continues to be the dominant means to almost all educational goals and ambitions. It is true that standardization can increase efficiency that is usually desirable when viewed from the perspective of those who manage schools or workplaces. Conversely, standardization is problematic because it objectifies the student and teacher. Standardization does so because students and teachers, as are true of all humans, are complex beings that are influenced by context, relations of power and culture. To reduce this human complexity to a solo focus on one's ability to take a test, is to deny our humanness while it furthers a view of education and schooling as sorting students based on misleading numbers and so called objectivity (Berube & Berube, 2007). As Popham (2001) says, "An instructionally insensitive test [what Popham refers to as part of standards based education] is one that is incapable of detecting improved learning on the part of students even if such learning has taken place (p.20).




Revisiting spaces of difference and transformation
From Solution to Experimentation
To revisit the implications of standardization as a mean to a desired end, we begin with the intimate connection between means/ends in our signature concept: creating spaces for difference to enhance transformative possibilities. In contrast, standardization, as a means, is often excluded from public debate with the end—for example raising test scores in comparison to other nations –only debated in terms of what the results show us (i.e., is the U.S. where it "should be" in comparison with others). However, while standardization is rarely debated even when the end is identified as in efficiency proposals, our approach not only sees means and ends as connected but sees as a necessity the need to consider in some depth what it means to create spaces of difference for transformative possibilities in schools. This consideration is not an attempt to define the meaning for all others who would participate in this transformative process, but rather becomes a starting point for others to debate and alter our signature means/end. Put directly, this suggests that not only is the process of change continuous but the direction and means (connected as they are), the problem itself, is also open to change and alteration. Another opening to alter the problem emerges because adjacent spaces don't necessary stay the same over time. And as these spaces change (e.g., the space of schooling and the space of job opportunities, for example) so will the nature of the problem and its transformative priorities.
In practice, this suggests that creating spaces of difference is not a singular solution (this or that will correct schooling) as is almost always the case for all standardized reforms. In fact, schooling can't be the problem but rather the space of schooling and its relation to adjacent spaces defines the problem. Further, addressing this problem requires a continuous process that begins with debating means/ends, moves to experimenting with interventions and assessing these interventions. Finally, creating spaces of difference is not a singular solution but a building process of experimentation aimed at transformation (Gitlin & Peck, 2005).
Standardization also differs from creating spaces of difference because the school space is considered opaque –unchanging—and therefore once success is established no further changes are envisioned. For example, if test scores go up for a particular school and they show the improvement that is needed to satisfy the NCLB criteria, the school has arrived no matter what changes take place in the space of school in terms of teachers' administrators policies, etc., never mind changes in the employment situation, for example, in an adjacent space. Creating spaces of difference takes a very different position in that no matter how successful the approach is at a particular moment, the assumption is that over time new challenges and possibilities will emerge that require further changes some of which may be dramatic. Material changes, for example, connected to labor, wages, housing and transportation may need to be consistently altered for a community to fully engage with and work with schools to produce better results for all students, especially those who have been marginalized by schooling.
From Ordered Spaces to Spaces of Difference
A second focus of our comparative analysis is the structure of the classroom in rows of seats to achieve order. Order, as seen by dominant groups and normative standards as a form of desirable behavior is really about keeping an eye on students and keeping them away from each other—it is a focus on supervision. Our approach is quite oppositional to this view in that we see desirable behavior as instances where students, teachers, administrators, the local community, etc. connect and reconnect. And not just any sort of connection will do, rather connections across differences that pushes one beyond their current views of problems and desirable actions. In this sense, the creation of behavior that minimizes connections stands in opposition to our perspective where we use connections across differences as a way forward.
In our schools, students would not only be encouraged to connect within the classroom but the classroom itself becomes a contested terrain (Edwards, 1979) such that the standard notion of the space as classroom where classroom students are basically separated from other students in the school and outside the school, is challenged by making the space of the classroom of critical concern with the need to produce more fluid spaces. Put directly, because connections of difference are at the heart of this transformative phenomenology, making classrooms more open to the flow of students within the school thereby adding differing perspectives to discussions and allowing for additional connections across differences, in an essential part of our approach. Redesigning the space of the classroom in this sort of way is in line with the values of our transformative phenomenology. In all these cases, the criteria of assessment for the redesign of the space of the classroom is clear—Do the connections made within a classroom, between classrooms and between schools and communities, for example, produce "symbiotic" relations that broaden (make more inclusive) perspectives, problem identification as well as actions and designs associated with transformation.
We cannot specify exactly what is or will be the arrangement in the classroom because it needs to be a process of experimentation that values connections across differences. These connective differences attempt to create a fluid boundary between the inside and outside of the classroom, if not the school, such that this relation fuels new innovations and designs to act on the constraints within the space and between spaces.
From Testing to Critical Learning. A third focus of comparison concerns sorting and its relation to our view of creating spaces of difference for transformation. Sorting is fueled by the standardization of a test (having all students take the same test) as well as the supposed objectivity of the test itself. Sorting as was true of the "rows of seats" is a process of separation. Except with sorting the consequences are dire in that getting a low score on the test can influence opportunities in the future for further schooling and work. If the standardized test is fair and objective as it claims, then at least the sorting is fair and objective. However, within the creating spaces of difference framework the sorting process can't be fair. Why? Because the problem is not centered in the school, it is centered in the relation between the space of the school and any number of adjacent spaces. As a consequence, therefore, a standardized test which does nothing to transform the relationship of the space of the school and adjacent spaces is inherently unfair because it does nothing to account for the material realities in the school or adjacent spaces which limit actions and cooperative and creative participation. In the most direct terms, sorting will never be fair because it does not consider the different cultural playing fields outside the school. In this sense, the claim of fairness and objectivity is limited at best.
In contrast, our concern is with providing equal or nearly equivalent starting points by altering material conditions where needed for particular cultural groups. Once the community can fully participate with the school, the responsibility shifts from only the school to the school/community spatial relation. The student's responsibility is to engage in the learning process and to make a case for what they have learned. Further, higher levels of schooling and workplaces can then assess the importance of this development for the their needs and development (again success in terms of needs can not penalize any particular cultural group—otherwise it stands in opposition to change and transformation). Getting an A or a perfect score on a standardized test will decrease in value as what is learned and how students develop over time is of the utmost importance. Schooling would emerge as an institution of critical learning not an institution of testing. We invoke the word critical to reflect a fundamental insight found in the work of Paulo Freire (1993) that there is little hope for a critical pedagogy where the student becomes an object, a commodity that is filled with information (Freire, 1993). In some ways our position is an extension of Freire's position in that instead of pedagogy we are challenging the view that students should accept the way standardized tests and grades define what they have learned in the space of schooling. They should, instead, take the lead in making a case for what they learned. By making a case they become critical subjects in terms of what they learned not only how the pedagogy works on them.
Opening
In our attempt to stay open, transforming schools by creating spaces of difference has taken an unconventional approach by insisting that the status quo is or will be in short order dysfunctional for the needs and character of an unknown future. The only way to deal with this disjuncture is to put forth a continuous process of change that experiments pragmatically with the "is" as it reimagines the "ought"(Eisner, 2002). In this sense, our approach is not tied to a science that begins with the "is" and tries to predict through causal relations the unknown future but rather sees difference as an engine for a creative process that produces new designs. While most reforms only propose new activities to do this or that in school, few look to create a continuous process of new designs on the unknown constructed future (Kuhn, 1962)). Creating spaces of difference tries to do both by using difference as a force for the design of new activities and spaces. But difference is not limited to activities and designs of space, it also includes school space and adjacent spaces. This relational difference is important for our view because schools can't be reformed or transformed by only looking within schools. Instead schools need to be seen in relation to spaces such as local communities, national spaces or even a global space. The importance of looking at adjacent spaces is that these spaces and the actors within can coordinate efforts in terms of a common good to promote an inclusive approach to school success. And where actors within schools and outside are constrained by material conditions that don't allow a two-way participatory approach to communicate and identify cooperative and common interests, material conditions in both spaces need to be reconfigured to allow for teachers to teach and still have time for participation and parents to parent, work and also have time to participate in an intense and messy process. At a time where violence against African-Americans is rising at an alarming rate, and police are experiencing violence acts directed at their role alone, it is essential that our schools contribute to a healing process that transforms violence into debate. One way to do so is to transform schools by creating spaces of difference.



References
Apple, M. (1971). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. Interchange, 2(4), 27-40. doi:10.1007/BF02287080.
Beery, T. A., Shell, D., Gillespie, G., & Werdman, E. (2013). The impact of learning space on teaching behaviors. Nurse Education in Practice, 13, 382-387. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2012.11.001
Bernet, R., Kern, I, & Marbach, E. (1993). An introduction to Husserlian phenomenology. Evanston, IL.: Northwestern University Press.
Berube, M. & Berube, T. (2007). The end of school reform. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blau, J. (2007). What Would Sartre Say? And, Arendt's Reply?. Social Forces, 85(3), 1063-1078.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1989). Can there be a liberal philosophy of education in a democratic society? In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle ( pp. 24-31). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bradley, R. (2016, May 15). The cancer almanac. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 48-53.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 
Ferlaino, N. (September, 10,2016) CNN WIRE http://kfor.com/2016/09/10/racist-sexist-homophobic-xenophobic-islamaphobic-you-name-it-clinton-calls-half-of-trumps-supporters-basket-of-deplorables.
Fine, M. (1989). Silencing and nurturing voice in an importable context: urban adolescents in public schools. In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 152-173). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Fine, M., & Halkovic, A. (2014). A delicate and deliberate journey toward justice: Challenging privilege: Building structures of solidarity. In P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, E. C. Marcus, P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, 3rd ed (pp. 56-75). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ford, D. R. (2013). Toward a theory of the educational encounter: Gert Biesta's educational theory and the right to the city. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 299–310.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.) New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Friedman, M. (1995, Feb. 19). Public Schools: make them Private. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New-York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gass, R. (2012). What is transformation? and how it advances social change. Social Transformation Project. Retrieved from: http://stproject.org/resources/publications/what-is-transformation/
Gadamer. H.G. (2011) Truth and method (second edition). London: Continuum International Publishing Company.
Giroux, H. (2011) Rethinking cultural politics and radical pedagogy. In Giroux, H. On Critical Pedagogy (pp. 48-68). NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Gitlin, A. & Peck, M. (2005) Educational poetics: Inquiry, freedom and innovative necessity. Peter Lang New York.
Gorner, P. (2007). Heidegger's Being and time: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. (A.V. Miller., Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New-York, NY: Harper & Row.
Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from. New-York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Kohn, A. (2011). The Case against Grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28-33.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to act-network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford university press.
Lefebvre, H. (2014). Critique of everyday life. (J. Moore, Trans.). London: Verso.
Marcuse, M. One-Dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marx, K. (1956). Selected writing in sociology and social philosophy. (T. B. Bottomore & M.Rubel, Eds., T. B. Bottomore, Trans.). New-York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: educational costs of standardized testing. New-York, NY: Routledge.
Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston, MA.: Beacon Press.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: how schools structure inequality. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press, retrieved on June 2016. Web. 18 August 2016.
Popham, W.J. (2004). Standards-based education: Two wrongs don't make a right. In D. Gabbard, & E.W. Ross (Eds), Defending public schools (Vol. 4, pp. 15-26). Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.
Professional Learning Board (n.d.). Do seating arrangements have an impact on student learning? [Web Blog]. Retrieved from: https://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/do-seating-arrangements-have-an-impact-on-student-learning/
Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: what's the right thing to do?. New-York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness; an essay on phenomenological ontology. (H. Barnes, Trans.). New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Schubert, W.L., Schuber, A.L., Thomas, T.P., & Carroll, W.M. (2002). Curriculum Books: The First Hundred Years. New-York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wannarka, R.& Ruhl, K. (2008, May 6). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23, pp. 89-93. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00375.x.
Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour: how working class kids get working class jobs. Farnborough, UK: Saxon House.
Young, I. M., & Oxford University Press. (2011). Responsibility for justice. New-York, NY: Oxford University Press.