Dennis Frayne Arts, Music, & Education

 CHAPTER 8: A THEORY OF CHANGE FOR ALL EDUCATION

Preparation

Theory is a frame of reference that helps humans to understand their world and to function in it. (Chen, 1990, p. 17)

Our modesty and reverence cannot be great enough when we face the task of educating the child. Our humility before that being who presents us with a new riddle to solve can also not be great enough. (Steiner, 1996, p. 72)

It is clear that education (as it is generally “delivered” in schools) is neither the custodian of the American dream, the “great equalizer” envisioned by Horace Mann, nor a catalyst for global peace, prosperity, and sustainability. (Shields, 2018)

The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. (Lorde, 2018)

Why isn’t it just the pure enjoyment of education and of learning that’s our focus? (Sophie)

Formation

It’s not enough.

I analyzed the data, pondered its implications, wrote about themes, made general recommendations, composed a screenplay with running commentary and bonus features, and thought about the question, “Where do we go from here?” I made specific recommendations toward practical applications within music education, and some of those expanded (or can be expanded) into all education. I restate my themes, posed as actions as they are, here:

• Embrace new thinking (let go of the old).

• Prioritize access, inclusion, and interests: Serve the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student; respect and honor students.

• Develop positive and meaningful relationships with students.

• Trust teachers and the teaching profession; respect and honor teachers.

• All teachers are teachers; involve them in everything.

• Invest in teacher growth and development.

• Properly fund education for all.

• Do the right thing; demand the right thing be done.

• Create environments where transformation happens; individual transformation, institutional transformation.

Teachers, administrators, policymakers, educational institutions, content providers, advocacy groups, and governments that take some or all of the above actions and stances and implement some or all of the practical applications and specific recommendations made in Chapter 7, which also can be applied to other subjects and content areas, likely will make improvements to education services within their domain. And I hope we do. Nevertheless, my analysis and recommendations still felt incomplete – I felt incomplete – a kind of empty or sinking feeling that I had not gone far enough persisted, and I could not shake it. My participants said more. And don’t we already know all this? And further, “If we have known this for so long, why has so little been done about it?” (Shields, 2018, p. 49)

So much has been written about all that I have written. So much is known about all that I have come to know. Yet so many people still suffer, so many people are still excluded, and so many people are still silenced, marginalized, neglected, harmed, and cast off by our present education system. So much remains as it so long has been, so much remains undone, so many promises remain unfulfilled, so much potential remains unrealized. So many people think about, write about, and argue about what to do and how to solve the problems and dissatisfactions of education. And so, as if I had not asked enough questions already, new questions nagged; and one in particular: Even if some people in some places took some of these recommendations to heart and implemented some of them, would it be enough? The questions became rhetorical, for the answers were self-evident. Would every student benefit, or just some students? Would improvement be everywhere, or only in some places? Would change be long lasting, or short lived? Would implementation be comprehensive, or piecemeal? Would transformation occur, or would we get just more of the same (Shields, 2018)? “The thing we keep coming back to is the restructuring of our education system and breaking down the barriers of inequality” (Sophie). What are these barriers and why do they still exist? “Until we finally decide to fundamentally redesign everything, changes are going to be incremental and situational. We have these little lights out there, but they don’t burn bright enough. They don’t last. Because they are not built into the system” (Dennis). “All of these things are possible, it just depends on who comes in, the superintendent or whatever, and then sets the tone” (Kerrie). “I remember in my first couple of years at my school, we were doing these ‘inquiry groups’ every afternoon and looking at ‘data’ and considering different ways of doing things, and then it just all went away” (Elise).

I decided I needed to think bigger, ask bigger. For example: What would an education system look like that truly included, truly served, truly respected, and truly honored all students? How would an education system function that truly trusted teachers and the teaching profession, that truly respected, and truly honored teachers? Could a system be developed that did not require outside pressure, top-down authority, constant battles, and/or ongoing – endless – “reforms” to operate in accessible and inclusive ways, but instead functioned in all the ideal ways out of itself, out of its own design, so that inclusion rather than exclusion was systemic? “It’s a whole reimagination of the system” (Elise). I wanted to imagine a “basic and radical alteration in those assumptions underlining our lives” (Lorde, 2018, 26). I knew I needed to transcend music education and consider all education, to take a “clean sheet of paper” approach, and to think still more deeply about everything I had learned so far. I understood the risk that my expanded task might turn out to be too huge, too complex, too unwieldy, way outside the initial scope, and very time-consuming. But I decided that’s what I needed to do.

So, keeping my dissertation’s underlying theoretical framework close (critical feminist theory, emancipatory education, inquiry as stance, and theory of change), and our study group discourse at the fore, I contemplated how it might be possible to develop a theory of change for education in the United States of America that might be transformative, comprehensive, universal, sustainable, and systemically benefit each and every student. And this became my goal.

Theory and Process

Overview

A theory of change is a “comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context” (Center for Theory of Change, 2021). The components and building blocks of my theory of change for education will be the discourse of the study group, which includes my own contributions and analysis, plus all the content which comprises chapters 1-7 and the appendices of this dissertation – all underpinned by and tightly woven within the fabric of the anti-oppressive theoretical frameworks embodying the essence of this dissertation including critical feminist theory, emancipatory education, and inquiry as stance. It is imperative that a theory of change for education be “firmly grounded in critical perspectives – perspectives that take into account the situations of the marginalized and oppressed and seek to offer remedy” (Shields, 2018, p. 19). First, I clarify the context for my theory of change (music education vs. all education). Second, I describe and take the initial steps in designing and developing a theory of change – identifying stakeholders and assembling a team (Chen, 1990). Third, I develop my theory of change for education and discuss implementation ideas, concerns, and solutions.

Context: Music Education vs. All Education

My dissertation began as a study of music education and music teachers. However, as the study progressed, it became apparent that a transformation of music education alone would be both insufficient and impossible. Insufficient because music teachers are teachers and should be involved in everything. Insufficient because a music program cannot truly be inclusive if the school is not inclusive. Insufficient because a music teacher cannot include each and every student, serve each and every student’s needs, desires, and interests, respect and honor each and every student, and develop positive and meaningful relationships with each and every student if they have no time or budget to do so, or are required to adhere to a preconceived curriculum. Impossible, because music education is one small world within a larger universe. Worlds are interconnected, and the universe governs each world, none of which can operate independently. So, it is more than music education. Music education was at our study’s center, but as a part within the whole, music education cannot be adequately addressed unless the whole of education is addressed. “To me it means so much more than just music education; it means looking at the whole system and figuring out what has to be done” (Elise). And that is what I set out to do.

Stakeholders

A tenet of theory of change is stakeholder involvement in its design and development. For the purpose of this discussion, since I do not have the means to involve actual stakeholders, I represent the stakeholders through the voices of my study group participants, which includes my own voice. Represented as such, two stakeholders have been identified: students (primary) and teachers (secondary). In reality, stakeholders and a leadership team should come from the people; and these people should not center the dominant groups in society or in education but more represent the minoritized and excluded people who most need change. “The people must find themselves in the emerging leaders, and the latter must find themselves in the people” (Freire, 1970/2018, p. 163).

The primary stakeholders for my theory of change are students. Students are the recipients of education, the end-users of education, the principal beneficiaries of healthy education, and the potential victims of harmful education (Fine, 1991; Mallet, 2015). The secondary stakeholders for my theory of change are teachers. Teachers are the providers and facilitators of education, the people most responsible for education, most directly involved in education, and as described previously, they are lifelong learners, individually and alongside their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Shields, 2018). For my purposes, I define teachers broadly as anyone who teaches, who educates, who participates in the work of teaching and educating. Teachers, like students, also are or can be abused and/or harmed by oppressive education systems and institutions. Students and teachers are the affected people within education who must “participate in developing the pedagogy of their own liberation” (Freire, 1970/2000, p. 48).

Parents (and guardians, family, etc.) have a self-evident interest in their children and therefore their children’s education, yet parents will not be considered stakeholders. Parents advocate for their children, can be the voice of their children, and therefore play an important role in supporting children (students), but for my purposes they are not actual stakeholders (except in their capacity as students and/or teachers) because they are not the recipients of education. One might argue that parents have a more direct stake in education because children attending school enables parents to work during the day and earn a living. Without education, what would they do? Therefore, schooling is very important to them, and they have a stake in it. However, this feature of some schooling is not education; it is daycare – akin to Shields’ (2018) custodial aspect of schooling today. But we do not (or should not) have schools because parents need daycare. Parents may have an interest in daycare, but daycare is not education. Some elements of daycare might include or be educational activities – these would be education. Early childhood education programs, preschool and nursery school programs, homeschooling group outings, and even free play, are or can be education. Intent rather than content is the determinant for whether a parent is seeking education or daycare. The goals for daycare are likely different than the goals for education. Therefore, daycare shall be defined as separate from education, and not directly a part of my theory of change for education.

Likewise, community members, or society at large, will not be considered stakeholders. Community members and society as a whole have an interest in education, because everyone benefits from an educated citizenry, and humanity progresses together (e.g., Dewey, 1897; Freire, 1970/2018). Yet this benefit, too, is once removed. Society directly benefits from the participation of people in society, and only indirectly benefits from education itself, because education educates people, and people participate in society. Yet each person must be educated in freedom, at liberty to define and create themselves as they see fit, not with an expectation of future performance for society (e.g., Avison & Rawson, 2019; Dewey, 1897; Freire, 1970/2018; Greene, 1988; Steiner, 1996). Society, like parents and family, should play a supporting role for students and children. One important way society must express their interest in and support of education is by properly funding it.

Finally, administrators and others who contribute to or benefit from the present education systems and institutions will not be considered stakeholders. These people and organizations clearly have an interest in the education systems and institutions; but in creating a theory of change for education, we need to begin with outcomes, not systems (Chen, 1990). Until those outcomes have been defined, we cannot (should not) move toward defining what systems, if any, must be put in place to help us achieve those outcomes. Therefore, for the purpose of developing a theory of change, systems and institutions do not yet exist, and as such, people and organizations with an interest in systems and institutions would make inappropriate stakeholders.

Children as Stakeholders

Students who are children might be viewed as inappropriate primary stakeholders because of their age, and perhaps, their potentially limited knowledge and experience. As such, children might be considered incapable of knowing what is in their own best interests. For my theory of change for education, I take the opposite view: that students, including children, are the ones most capable of determining what is in their best interests. A growing number of scholars and researchers agree that children have more knowledge and experience than some give them credit for and should be listened to (e.g., Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Hyder, 2002; Lansdown, 2004; Mirra et al., 2016; Nelson, 2007; Schultz, 2011; Yoon & Templeton, 2019). “Kids are quite sophisticated and knowledgeable” (Eden). Appadurai (2006) notes that “all human beings are, in a sense, researchers” (p. 167), and this includes children of elementary school age. Dyson (2013) writes, “[A]dult-designed institutions do not dictate children’s lives.

Children have agency in the enactment of their own childhoods; this is a structured agency, shaped in response to the relational and power dynamics of everyday practices” (p. 404). “Learners [children] are active agents in constructing their own understanding, and their own lives (Tomlinson, 1999, as cited in Grant & Lerer, 2011, p. 24). Kellett (2009) advocated that children with learning disabilities, too, should be able to participate in a meaningful way in decision-making that impacts their lives. And as Moll et al. (1992) discovered, children bring not little knowledge but funds of knowledge to their learning environments.

Adults are inconsistent and unpredictable (Dempsey, 2020). It is well known that while many children receive healthy support and nurturing from some adults, other children experience abuse, violence, and other harm from some adults. While many children receive helpful guidance from some adults, other children receive poor guidance from some adults; adults cannot predict the circumstances of the world our children are growing into (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). The United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021) reports that at least 1 in 7 children experience child abuse and/or neglect, and that 1,840 children died of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2019. And of course, adults created our existing education system, within which some students want for nothing, and other students have almost nothing (Elizabeth). Using a broad stroke to paint adults as always doing what is best for children, or knowing what is in a child’s best interests, and therefore should be making all the decisions for children, does not hold up to the realities of American life. While parents and other adults frequently may advocate for their children, and sometimes be the voice of their children, especially very young children, only children know what is inside them, and their voices should be heard and not silenced (e.g., Dyson, 2013; Hyder, 2002; Kellett 2009; Lansdown, 2004; Nelson, 2007; Yoon & Templeton, 2019). “With how our education system is currently set up, students aren’t necessarily in a good position to voice their concerns or their dissent” (Sophie). For the purposes of my theory of change for education, I hold that students, including children, know their needs, desires, and interests best, and are the appropriate – the only appropriate – primary stakeholders.

Evaluator

As essential as stakeholders are to developing a theory of change, there may be shortcomings when relying on stakeholders and their perceived needs alone. Stakeholders are unlikely to see everything, to know everything, to understand everything, or to predict everything. It is therefore suggested that an evaluator with professional expertise and experience play a part in developing a theory of change with stakeholders. Chen (1990) defines the “dual concern principle” in theory design as “balancing the dual concerns of the stakeholders’ needs and the evaluators’ professional judgment and standards” (p. 80). For the purpose of this dissertation’s theory of change, not only am I representing the study group’s voices as the stakeholders, but I am also playing the role of evaluator. As mentioned in Chapter 1 of this report, I here rely, in part, on the “epistemic privilege that arises out of my experiences as a student, as a teacher, as a musician, as an educational leader, and as a collaborator with other students, teachers, musicians, and educational leaders.”

Design, Development, Execution

Program theory contains specific strategies for achieving a goal or solving a social problem. It implies that something ought to be done in order to improve the current situation. (Chen, 1990, p. 41)

“We are truly in a state of crisis,” says Noah Karvelis, an educator from Arizona, where cuts to public school funding have been deeper than anywhere else in the country. (National Education Association, 2022a)

I am putting forward a bold agenda to address long-standing inequities that have caused disproportionate learning gaps for students of color and other student groups in California with a plan to transform California schools. (T. Thurmond, California Department of Education, 2022)

I almost walked out today. Grabbed my keys, left the 2nd graders in my room with the aide, pulled Nate out, and drove home. Without ever going back. Guys, this is no joke. We need education reform, and we need it yesterday. I don't have the answers, but I know the system we have definitely doesn't have the answers. (D. Shutts, personal communication, April 25, 2022)

Is it possible we are trying to meet the needs of our time with wholly inadequate methods? (personal memo, December 28, 2021)

Why do we create all these burdens for kids to get an education? None of these circumstances are their fault. (Sophie)

Do We Have a Problem?

It takes little effort to accumulate evidence from scholarly works, news articles, video commentary, social media posts, and family discussions, that many people are dissatisfied with education in the United States, for a host of reasons. With our team (hypothetically) assembled, the first thing we should ask, according to the theory of change framework, is, “Do we have a problem?” (Chen, 1990). Does something need to be done in order to improve the current situation with education? The answer, clearly, is, “Yes.” In addition to what we might see and hear “out there,” the content of the earlier chapters of this dissertation, plus the action-oriented nature of the themes and recommendations stemming from the discourse of the study group, indicate that something ought to be done in order to improve the current situation within both music education and indeed all of education.

Outcomes

Next, we should acknowledge that in order to develop specific strategies for improving upon or solving a social problem such as education, we must identify, and/or clarify, and agree upon goals. So, straightaway, the essential task of stakeholders is to identify and/or determine, in the language of theory of change, desired outcomes (Chen, 1990). One might ask whether we already understand the desired goals for and/or outcomes of education. I suggest that we, as a society, do not adequately understand nor agree to our desired goals for and/or outcomes of education. Labaree (1997) contended we are ever “fighting among ourselves about what goals schools should pursue” (p. 40). And many of the goals we do express and pursue are problematic within – antithetical to – our critical, emancipatory framework (as I have discussed and discuss further below), because they are rooted in exclusionary, racist, classist, sexist, ableist, corporatist, statist, nationalist – even imperialist – ideals and constructs.

A cursory review of school, district, and government websites produces an assortment of goals for education, found in mission statements, vision statements, and statements of purpose. There are similarities among them, and there are differences. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between goals of the institution versus what might be considered goals for education; often they blend. Here are a few examples (paraphrased to focus on the goals, not the means, nor the embedded values):

To foster a love for learning. (Loma Vista Elementary School, n.d.)

To be prepared for success in college, career, and civic life. (Chicago Public Schools, 2021)

To think, feel, and act with depth, imagination, and purpose. (Waldorf School of Baltimore, 2018)

To prepare for the future. (Montessori Unlimited, 2022)

To thrive as effective adults in the world. (Sudbury Valley School, 2020)

To live their Catholic faith as servant leaders of Christ; To develop their God-given gifts and talents to meet the challenges of this ever-changing world. (St. Junipero Serra Catholic School, 2022)

To become contributing members of society empowered with the skills, knowledge, and values necessary to meet the challenges of a changing world. (Irvine Unified School District, 2022)

To achieve their full potential; To achieve mastery of academic standards; Career preparation; To produce self-directed, productive citizens. (Ceres Unified School District, 2022)

To become empowered to achieve personal, academic, and economic advancement. (Saddleback College, 2020)

To develop intellectually, personally, and professionally; To contribute to California's schools, economy, culture, and future; To be prepared for international, multi-cultural society. (California State University, n.d.)

To live, work, and thrive in a multicultural, multilingual, and highly connected world. (California State Department of Education, 2021)

To achieve and be prepared for global competitiveness. (United States Department of Education, 2011)

Several things stand out about these goals. As worded, they typically are vague and unmeasurable (lifelong learners, act with depth, effective adults, full potential, challenges of a changing world, be prepared). They sometimes express goals that are naturally inherent in people already, or that people learn naturally without formal education – perhaps in spite of formal education – simply by interacting with others or striving on their own (people are born lifelong learners, people act with purpose, people develop their talents, people contribute, people prepare). They often express something that people are going to do to people (foster in them, prepare them, empower them, develop them or develop in them, produce); and they often express expectations that people will do or become something once educated (lovers of learning, prepared, successful, deep, imaginative, purposeful, effective, servant leaders, contributing members, high- achieving, productive, empowered, thriving, competitive, even globally competitive). Sophie raised the problematic nature of such statements:

Our mission statements say, “The purpose of education is to prepare kids for the global economy.” Although I believe that education is a lot more than that, I never stopped to reconsider those mission statements within schools or education as a whole. They might actually be one of the big driving factors for a lot of problems we face in education today.

For my theory of change for education, I seek outcomes that are specific and not vague, that are measurable (Chen, 1990), that are not naturally occurring, that do for rather than to people (students) (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), and that do not come with future expectations of the recipients of education, or “strings attached.” As Dewey (1897) suggested, education should not be a preparation for future living, but a process of living now, in the present, in community.

As a theory of change develops, assumptions and preconditions are uncovered and documented (Chen, 1990). For my theory of change, this is the first set of assumptions I make and document: that society cannot make a contract with children regarding education; that education cannot be an “if…then…else” situation; that education must be freely provided by society to all children (at minimum); and that, therefore, the desired outcomes for education (of children at minimum) cannot carry future obligations or impositions (e.g., Avison & Rawson, 2019; Dewey, 1897; Freire, 1970/2018; Greene, 1988; Steiner, 1996).

In addition to mission and vision statements, I investigated education theories for ideas about goals for education. Functionalist theory and conflict theory stood out (R. Collins, 1971). Functionalist theory sees education as serving the needs of society. Durkheim (1956) wrote about functionalist education as moral education, as the transmission of values from generation to generation, and as the socialization of people into society’s mainstream. Functionalism advocates sorting – the process of ranking and separating people based on merit. Conflict theory sees education as maintaining and preserving hegemony and existing or dominant power structures (R. Collins, 1971; Davies, 2003).

Much in the discourse of the study group supported suggestions from within both functionalist theory and conflict theory. In support of functionalist theory, several things were said about our present education system sponsoring values such as capitalism, individualism, and competitiveness. Parents were frequently identified as people striving to pass down their political perspectives to children via the education system. In support of conflict theory, several things were said about our present education system maintaining the status quo, benefiting the rich and excluding the poor, and favoring and preserving the dominant (white) and more powerful (monied) groups. However, the goal of my theory of change for education is not to theorize descriptively (Chen, 1990) about the purpose of our current education system, but rather to develop a prescriptive theory for what education could or should be; to “change existing conditions, not merely to represent them” (Riley, 2012, p. 44). Most importantly, for my theory of change for education, I seek outcomes that do not carry expectations that students serve or preserve anyone or anything. Therefore, these theories, however useful in describing the current state of education in the United States, are insufficient in themselves to generate desired outcomes for my theory of change for education.

After reviewing and pondering the potential of mission and vision statements and educational theories, I turned finally to the discourse of the study group and the themes expressed as actionable items and recommendations. First, it’s about students. I asked, what do students want? From the study group the answer seems clear: Prioritize access, inclusion, and interests: Serve the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student; respect and honor students. Can these be expressed as goals for and/or desired outcomes of education? Here is my suggestion:

The goal of education is to:

1. Include each and every student.

2. Serve the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student.

3. Respect and honor each and every student.

The goals expressed as desired outcomes of education are:

1. Each and every student is included.

2. The needs, desires, and interests of each and every student are met, satisfied, and fulfilled.

3. Each and every student is respected and honored.

Let’s test these outcomes to see if they satisfy the requirements I outlined above:

Are the desired outcomes specific, clear, and measurable (Chen, 1990, p. 91)? Yes, and they can be measured simply by asking each and every student: Have you been / Do you feel included? Have your needs, desires, and interests been met, satisfied, fulfilled? Have you been / Do you feel respected and honored? If any student answers “No” to any of these questions, then the education system is less than 100% successful. The goal must be 100% successful in order to satisfy the “each and every student” requirement, which will be especially important to stress when it comes time to design the systems that will achieve the desired outcomes.

Are the desired outcomes naturally occurring? No, as evidenced by the fact that none of these outcomes is presently achieved.

Are the desired outcomes designed to do for rather than to students? Yes, clearly, as they should be.

Do the desired outcomes come with future expectations of the recipients, with strings attached, or do they carry expectations that students will serve or preserve someone or something? No, clearly, as they should not.

One might ask, are these desired outcomes the final outcomes? Or do these desired outcomes serve a still higher purpose? For example, do we include each and every student in order to achieve something else? Do we meet, satisfy, and fulfill each and every student’s needs, desires, and interests in order to achieve something else? Do we respect and honor each and every student in order to achieve something else? Do we do any of these things so that students might achieve something else? Something “bigger?” The answer, as already suggested, is, “No.” We do these things simply because they are the right thing to do. Education must be emancipatory (e.g., Freire), not binding or oppressive (e.g., Sandoval), and should allow and encourage students to be, to live (in the present), and not to owe (a future debt) (Dewey). These desired outcomes, therefore, must be the final outcomes of education. What happens after, what students do with these outcomes, or with their education and learning, etc., is up to them. Whether a student uses or intends to use their education to earn money, or to make music, or to raise a family, or to design anime, or to enter politics, or to join the Peace Corps, or to study soil, plants, or animals, or to play sports, or to join a cause, or to perform religious service, or to become a teacher themselves – these are all interesting and exciting but not relevant to our outcomes. If they were, it would break our assumption that education cannot and will not be conditional. “Because kids are humans, not manufactured product” (Bob). Because education should be something students do, not something done to them (Cammarota & Fine; Cochran-Smith & Lytle). Our desired outcomes for education are the outcomes we will seek, according to my theory of change for education. So, for these purposes, I became satisfied with the goals for, and desired outcomes of, education as expressed here; they will stand.

Backwards Mapping and Connecting Outcomes

The next step in developing a theory of change is to figure out how to achieve the desired outcomes. What do we do? What do we put in place? What must happen before an outcome can be achieved? This is the work of identifying strategies, systems, and intermediate outcomes, “outcomes mapping” or “backwards mapping,” and creating “so that” chains (e.g., Annie E. Casey Foundation 2004; Center for Theory of Change, 2021; Chen, 1990; Taplin & Rasic, 2012).

In helping me to prepare for this work I turned to scholarship on systems and leadership. I revisited redesign strategies that I honed through my own first-hand experience and learning back in my information technology days related to facilitation and brainstorming, data modeling, process modeling, JAD sessions, and systems reengineering efforts, and I drew on readings from my doctoral program on topics of organizational strategy, program and evaluation theory, logic modeling, and in particular, transformative leadership (e.g., Northouse, 2016; Shields, 2018). To do this work properly, it is important that we start with a clean sheet of paper, identify and remove “non-negotiables” (what existing beliefs, constructs, or traditions are felt to be “untouchable” or “off the table” that would prevent or impede creative and innovative solutions), and allow space and opportunity for new thinking to emerge, including transformation and paradigm shifts (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 2017; Covey, 1989; Drucker, 1985; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz et al., 2009; Northouse, 2016; Shields, 2018). In addition, we want to design strategies, systems, and intermediate outcomes that are supported by – “built into” – the structure itself (systemic). We do not want to incorporate elements that are in opposition to the desired outcomes, or to create new oppressive systems while striving to dismantle the existing ones (Freire, 1970/2018; Lorde, 2018). This may seem self-evident. But to be certain, before I began mapping outcomes, I considered the plausibility of reform of the current system – continuous incremental improvements, say – versus a complete reimagining.

Existing Education System

How does my theory of change for education, with its redefined desired outcomes, interact with our existing education system? Could a design, development, and implementation team work from within the existing system? Could they work to change or reform the existing system so that it becomes a new system over time? I consulted the discourse of the study group, where a similar question arose. It compelled me to ask whether adequate improvements to our education system in the United States are possible or impossible because, essentially, our education institutions are doing what they were designed to do, and new thinking enters as a challenge to rather than progress toward its fundamental goals and purposes. “Can you make something that is inherently racist and classist and sexist into something that is no longer any of those things?” (Sophie). My answer is, “No, you cannot.” The reason why is straightforward: because our current education system has been designed to exclude people, and our desired outcomes for a new education paradigm focus first and foremost on including everyone. The goals are diametrically opposed.

Designed to Exclude People

Our education system, mirroring our society, was designed from the start to exclude people. The nature of this exclusion has evolved in some ways over time, but fundamentally has not changed. Our history is filled with legal and other battles which have striven through constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, federal and state laws, and other mechanisms to require education to be more inclusive, more equal, and more accessible. And these same mechanisms have resulted in repressive reversals. Steps forward have been made, as have steps backward. More battles are fought, and more laws are passed every year. Yet our education system remains exclusive. I discussed this ongoing exclusion in education within my screenplay’s running commentary, and presented examples: grades, GPAs, grade levels, tracking, sorting, ranking, promotions, graduations, suspensions, expulsions, diplomas, entrance exams and other requirements, prerequisites, auditions, program costs and money, English-only instruction, good and bad neighborhoods, specially designated schools, and more. The extent to which these and other exclusionary practices are racist, classist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and other is important, but will not change the fundamental principle of exclusion at education’s core.

Designed to Serve and Preserve an Exclusive Society

Our education system has been designed from the start to serve and preserve an exclusive society (R. Collins, 1971; Davies, 2003; Durkheim, 1956). The root of the word “education” (educare) may mean “to draw out,” but according to our study group discourse, our education system serves more to control than to invite, more to transfer knowledge (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018; hooks, 2010) than to generate knowledge (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Freeman, 1998), more to tell people what to think and do than to ask what they think and would like to do, and more to preserve the status quo than to challenge it. The importance of all people contributing to a harmonious and healthy society seems self-evident. Yet, society, like all systems and institutions, is “grounded in the status quo” (Shields, 2018, p. 14), and engages in self-preservation (e.g., Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) and “reproducing itself” (Allsup, 2003). Our society wants exclusion, like racism, “to be accepted as an immutable given in the fabric of your existence, like evening time or the common cold” (Lorde, 2018, p. 28). Our exclusive society educates itself. Our exclusive society has created the education system that educates itself. Wrongfully, our exclusive society transmits incorrect, outdated thinking to each new generation. In so doing, how can an exclusionary society, its government, and its leadership, produce anything but an exclusionary education system?

Children provide answers and possibilities because each upcoming generation has the potential to reimagine society. Yet children are uninvited, silenced, and made to conform (e.g., Appadurai, 2006; Dyson, 2013; Fine, 1991; Giroux, 1988; McLaren, 1986/1999). Traditionally, society has taken the position that the older generation must train the younger generation in its ideas and conform it to its ways. In this manner, society's ways are retained. My theory of change for education suggests new ways of thinking, 180-degree alternatives, and dramatic shifts of vision: that we include each and every student, that we attend to the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student, that we respect and honor each and every student. My theory of change requires society in some sense to step aside, to do less talking and more listening (for example, to children), and to trust in teachers and the teaching profession to create a space in which younger generations are encouraged to bring new thinking into it, a space where society might be transformed. Steiner (as cited in Avison & Rawson, 2019) wrote,

The question to be asked is not: what does an individual need to know and be capable of doing so as to fit into the existing social order? but rather, what potential does an individual have and what can be developed in him or her? When this is taken into account each new generation can bring forces of continuous renewal to the social order. In the social order there will then live all that the fully mature human beings in it cause it to be. For the existing social order to mold the coming generation in its own image is something that must not happen. (p. 14)

And Freire (1970/2018) concurred:

Students soon discover that in order to achieve some satisfaction they must adapt to the precepts which have been set from above. One of these precepts is not to think… A rigid and oppressive social structure necessarily influences the institutions of child rearing and education within that structure. These institutions pattern their action after the style of the structure, and transmit the myths of the latter. Homes and schools exist not in the abstract, but in time and space. Within the structures of domination they function largely as agencies which prepare the invaders of the future. (pp. 154-155)

Children should not so much be molded by society but, in fact, should be taught and encouraged to mold society: to participate in collective social transformation (e.g., Fine, 1991; Giroux, 1985; McLaren, 1986/1999; Mirra et al., 2016; Shor, 1992). Children bring funds of knowledge, assets, and new thinking to their communities and society as well as to school (Moll et al., 1992), even as they are learning and developing. And the actualization of teachers learning alongside and from their students would demonstrate, too, that students can be not only collaborators with teachers but also teachers of teachers.

Designed to Safeguard an Exclusive Authority

While many may intend to and strive to pass down the values and ideals of democracy in schools today, few schools “live” the values and ideals of democracy (e.g., Gatto, 1992/2017a, 2002, 2017b; Gray, 2013; Greenberg, 2016; Shields, 2018). We may teach it using the banking method of education (Freire, 1970/2018), attempting to fill our quietly awaiting students with knowledge about democracy. And we might add an emotional component, promoting patriotism through texts, stories, music, holidays, and celebrations. But our education system rarely models democracy or operates democratically or in an emancipatory way from a student perspective (Kahne & Westheimer, 2003), and often not even from a parent, teacher, or community perspective (Kirshner & Boberson, 2015). Rather, school is mostly an authoritarian, top down, command and control, and compliance-focused experience for students and others, which “increases the climate of oppression” (Freire, 1970/2018, p. 154). “Am I modeling the behavior I want to see?” (Elizabeth). “Is it just because they’re being forced into compliance?” (Sophie). “What’s built into the system is regiment” (Kerrie). As such, are students learning democratic principles, or authoritarian principles, in school? In my experience, there is little that most students experience as democracy, or choice, or due process, at school. Authoritarianism is an exclusive (and oppressive) practice, not an inclusive one. Students are told what to do and when to do it, they are expected to be obedient, their voices are rarely heard, they are silenced, and they are detained, suspended, and expelled when they become too much trouble (e.g., Fine, 1991). “Just keep these kids under control and pass out the information that you need to pass out” (Kerrie). “One of my goals as a teacher, especially along the lines of social justice and equity, is centering the marginalized voices in my classroom” (Elise). Students carry their experiences and attitudes into society as adults and reinscribe them (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018). In an education paradigm that centers inclusion and student interests, there might be more opportunities for students to participate in actual democratic life, and for their voices to be heard. Perhaps these experiences will lead to a more meaningful experience of freedom and democracy, and a more thorough understanding of and appreciation for these ideals as youth develop and mature.

Designed to Intensify Competitiveness – Another Exclusionary Mechanism

Our education system has been designed, and more recently honed and refocused, to intensify competitiveness. Especially since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (Gardner, et al.), the United States Department of Education has striven toward what might be called nationalist – even imperialist – and corporatist objectives that center global competitiveness, achievement, and “excellence” (United States Department of Education, n.d.): “to produce the nation’s workforce” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, pp. 1-2). Short of a reversal, it seems unlikely that our current education system will be able to start working toward new outcomes that center students’ needs, desires, interests, respect, and honor, and move away from longstanding, entrenched goals that prize student expectations of achievement, “excellence,” and corporate, state, and national service to “the economy.”

New Education System

Some of those older teachers feel things are exactly the way they should be, and it’s always been this way. (Kerrie)

If [our current education system] already has these inherent qualities, and operates like a business or factory, are we digging ourselves further into a hole trying to fix the system, or should we rework a different system? (Sophie)

My theory of change for education does not recommend fixing, improving, or reforming the current system. The current system cannot be repaired, because as an institution responsible for sorting, classifying, segregating, and excluding people, it is not broken; it cannot be reformed, because as an institution rooted in racist, classist, sexist, ableist, corporatist, statist, and nationalist objectives, it is working effectively toward those objectives; it is doing what it has been designed to do (e.g., Gatto, 2002, 1992/2017a, 2017b; Gray, 2013; Shields, 2018). The core qualities of exclusion are embedded within its structure and are fundamental to its purposes. Laws and lawsuits are required to gain even modest movement toward access and inclusion, hoping to bend the system against its will. Ironically, parallel laws and lawsuits move us in the opposite direction, at cross purposes, reinforcing exclusion. Reforms, ultimately, equate to “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” (e.g., Shields, 2018), or worse, attempts to thwart firmly established objectives. The essential character and destination of our education system remains. Thus, my theory of change does not seek to add more items to the very long list of things we should do to fix education, to make it more equitable, to raise test scores, to improve graduation rates, to get better jobs, or to become more globally competitive. The list already has no end in sight, has too few items checked off, and has too many items added every year. Not to mention that many of the items are wrong for so many people. “It is a really unnatural environment, and it works really well for a handful of people, but for the most part, no, it doesn’t” (Kerrie). People argue about what should be on the list, what should not be, and how to tackle even the ones that are agreed upon. “It feels like we just keep adding more and more work with minimal results” (Sophie).

Neither does my theory of change involve “burning it down” (Bob, Dennis, Kerrie) and starting over. While this approach ultimately may be more effective than reform approaches, it is likely too risky, and surely dependent upon an intermediary situation between old and new. What would we do during the period when the old system collapsed, and the new system was built up? Although the metaphor of a “phoenix rising from the ashes” is poetic and alluring, it is likely not the metaphor I need for my theory of change for education. The ashes and death language recalls the aggressive language of “defund the police” (a strategy for which I remain a proponent), in that it comes across to some as disparaging and antagonistic toward the many good people who work hard within and unselfishly devote their lives to the present system. Abolishing (dismantling) the system of oppression (Freire, 1970/2018) is imperative, yet requires approaches that are both innovative and pragmatic.

My design, development, and implementation strategy for my theory of change for education is inspired by Srilatha Batliwala (2019), who in a talk on Feminist Leadership for Social Transformation quoted Buckminster Fuller, saying, “In order to change an existing paradigm, you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” In that spirit, my theory of change proposes developing a new education model, or paradigm, which grows side by side with our existing institutions, and over time, perhaps with a sooner than later “tipping point” (Gladwell, 2000), ultimately replaces them.

To these ends, as I began backwards mapping, I treated each of the three desired outcomes separately.

1. Each and every student is included.

In order to ensure that each and every student is included, first we need to eliminate all barriers to access, and end all policies, procedures, and practices that exclude students. By definition, we cannot include each and every student if we are excluding some. This means that we must eliminate all the exclusionary practices identified earlier. Many if not all these exclusionary practices are fundamental to our current education system: grades, GPAs, grade levels, tracking, sorting, ranking, promotions, graduations, suspensions, expulsions, diplomas, entrance exams and other requirements, prerequisites, auditions, program costs and money, English-only instruction, good and bad neighborhoods, specially designated schools, and all others we may come to identify. We must delete them all. There is little doubt this idea will seem outlandish or unfathomable to some. Nevertheless, my goal is not to hang onto existing practices or to preserve existing institutions, but to let go of incorrect and outdated thinking and to define a new model that might achieve our newly thought-out desired outcomes. Here is an attempt to state this in a positive way – as an attribute of education, or as what needs to be done rather than what not to do (perhaps more as a rule or guideline than an action) – using a one-level “so that” chain:

All education offerings, activities, opportunities, and spaces will be open to and accessible by each and every student at no charge, irrespective of any student attribute or characteristic, including but not limited to all of the statutory categories, plus age, ability level, effort, behavior, language, location, household, and other circumstances, so that each and every student is included.

In addition to the implications for all the tracking, sorting, ranking, and behavior-focused exclusionary practices currently used by present-day schools, it seems important to highlight that this connected outcome will require a rethinking of delivery mechanisms, facilities, and funding, since neither location nor other circumstances can be factors used to determine accessibility.

2. The needs, desires, and interests of each and every student are met, satisfied, and fulfilled.

In order to meet, satisfy, and fulfill the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student, education must have the capability first to identify student needs, desires, and interests, and then to deliver on them. This will require a reconceptualization of everything from standards, curriculum design, teaching materials, and the teaching profession itself, to the design and implementation of delivery mechanisms and facilities, to funding arrangements and capital allocations. Here is an attempt to state this using a multi-level, multi-dimensional “so that” chain:

Society/government will provide the proper funding so that teachers can do the following:

Teachers will develop positive and meaningful relationships with each and every student, and listen to, work with, study with, learn alongside, and advocate for each and every student, so that each and every student’s needs and desires can be identified, understood, and planned for.

Teachers will identify, understand, and plan for the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student so that appropriate offerings, activities, opportunities, and space can be provided to each and every student.

Teachers will provide offerings, activities, opportunities, and space, including but not limited to facilities, materials, equipment, resources, curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, instruction, assistance, tutoring, coaching, guidance, and counseling, to each and every student, so that each and every student’s needs, desires, and interests are met, satisfied, and fulfilled.

It is important to highlight that this connected outcome identifies the need for teachers to learn alongside students. Learning alongside students takes on increasing importance in our new education paradigm. We will construct another set of connected outcomes to address this need. This will be done separately to avoid too much complexity in the text of this outcome’s so-that chain. This need is also identified in the next outcome’s so-that chain.

3. Each and every student is respected and honored.

In order to ensure that each and every student is respected and honored, first we need to stop doing all the things that disrespect and dishonor students. These “things” include behaviors, approaches, content, communication, policies, procedures, practices, customs and norms, values and perspectives, and positions and attitudes that determine or play a part in how we treat students, how we treat their parents, guardians, and families, how we decide what is appropriate and inappropriate “for school” (e.g., Dutro, 2019; Motha, 2014; Yon, 2000), what is acceptable and unacceptable (e.g., McLaren, 1986/1999), what we praise and what we disdain (e.g., J. Banks, 2008/2014; hooks, 1994), what and who we center and privilege versus who we marginalize and ignore (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018; Giroux, 1981), including languages and home cultures (e.g., Motha, 2014; Taylor, 2016). Then, we need to start doing all the things that respect and honor students. A good starting point is to consider the teachers in the home context of the funds of knowledge studies (e.g., Moll et al., 1992). These teachers knew the whole child and developed reciprocity, interdependence, and mutual trust in long-term relationships. What might that look like in our new paradigm’s teaching practice? “Deficits” are now assets (e.g., Zapata, 2020). Here is an attempt to state this using a multi-level, multi-dimensional “so that” chain:

Teachers will learn each and every student's home language, value that language, and offer instruction in that language, in addition to English and any other language requested by each student, so that each and every student’s home language is respected and honored.

Teachers will learn about each and every student’s home culture, value that culture, and offer instruction in and activities related to that culture, in addition to any other culture requested by each student, so that each and every student’s home culture is respected and honored.

Teachers will learn about each and every student’s home life, value that home life, and take each student’s home life into account relative to all offerings, activities, opportunities, and space, so that each and every student’s home life is respected and honored.

Teachers will respect and honor each and every student’s home language, home culture, and home life, so that each and every student is respected and honored.

Teachers will advocate for each and every student, do the right thing for each and every student, and demand the right thing be done for each and every student, so that each and every student is respected and honored.

A student’s home language and their knowledge of that language, English or otherwise, is always an asset, never a deficit. It is something to be respected and honored. The requirement that teachers must learn the student’s language, rather than the other way around, reinforces all of this, structurally. In practice, this requirement to learn each and every student’s home language does not imply that every teacher must learn every student’s home language in all cases. The intent is that every student has teachers who can and will teach in any and all language(s) that the student requests (thus inaugurating the definitive end of English-only instruction). The implication here is that teachers (the teaching profession) must figure out how to do this. A general recognition that a monolingual society is less educated and informed than a multilingual society will help, and teachers should advocate for a more educated and informed society. Other solutions might include a) aggressively recruiting bilingual and multilingual (which often suggests more racially and ethnically diverse) teachers from within the communities they serve, intentionally overcoming certain structural and societal barriers that inhibit this today), b) aggressively developing bilingual and multilingual teachers in teacher preparation programs and ongoing teacher professional development, and c) students teaching teachers as they learn alongside and collaborate with them.

How the teaching profession, who in the new paradigm has the responsibility to do these things, gets the authority to design and implement solutions to get these things done is discussed further below, as the “so that” chain within the outcomes framework develops. Consider that what seems unlikely or impossible today with respect to language might seem more feasible as a multilingual society blossoms, grows, and begins to realize benefits. Note (again) that this connected outcome identifies the need for teachers to “learn alongside” students. I have constructed another set of connected outcomes to address this need. This is done in the following.

4. Teachers will develop positive and meaningful relationships with and learn alongside students.

For teachers to develop positive and meaningful relationships with and learn alongside students, they must have the time and resources to do so. “I think it would be wonderful if we were able to structure our day to spend more time getting to know our students, because I think it would actually be more productive during the time that we do see our students” (Sophie). Therefore, elements of learning, and investing in teacher growth and development, include providing the necessary time and resources. “An absolutely crucial condition is that we make inviolable the necessary time for substantive collaboration, time that is protected from absorption into the rituals of school life” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 154). Teachers will need to spend fewer hours teaching in order to have more time for developing relationships with and learning alongside students, and of course these relationship-building and learning-alongside activities will require funding. Here is an attempt to state this using a multi-level, multi-dimensional “so that” chain:

Society/government will provide the proper funding so that teachers can do the following:

Teachers will spend a portion of their work schedule teaching, and another portion of their work schedule will be freed up, so that they have time available to develop positive and meaningful relationships with, and learn alongside, students.

Teachers will request and receive money and resources so that they can develop positive and meaningful relationships with, and learn alongside, students.

Teachers will have time, money, and resources to learn each and every student’s home language, to learn about each and every student’s home culture, and to learn about each and every student's home life, so that each and every student’s home language, home culture, and home life is honored and respected.

5. Teachers and the teaching profession are trusted; teachers are respected and honored.

For society to trust teachers and the teaching profession, and respect and honor teachers, several things must happen. This connected outcome is more challenging to figure out how to implement than the others, because we have less control over it. It may be difficult to persuade or convince all of society to trust teachers, respect teachers, and honor teachers; it cannot be commanded, it must be organically attained. Society will need to come to see differently; education will need to provide space and opportunity for this transformation. For my theory of change for education, I suggest that this connected outcome is circular and iterative: the more teachers are trusted, respected, and honored, the better the outcomes of education are achieved; the better the outcomes of education are achieved, the more teachers are trusted, respected, and honored; on and on… Here is an attempt to state this using a circular/iterative “so that” chain:

Students, parents, and society will trust teachers and the teaching profession, and respect and honor teachers, so that teachers can do the following: (This connected outcome maps to everything that teachers do in the outcomes map).

Teachers will do the following (all the things they do in the outcomes map) so that students, parents, and society will trust teachers and the teaching profession, and respect and honor teachers.

6. All teachers are teachers; involve them in everything.

For education to happen, even in the new paradigm, some degree of oversight, governance, administration, and operations will be required. However, my theory of change suggests that teachers must be involved in everything. For the purposes and constraints of my theory of change within my dissertation, I think it is important to create a connected outcome for it. I propose that the outcomes for education as described in my theory of change for education cannot be successfully achieved unless teachers are not subject to external constraints but rather oversee everything themselves, with students. Here is an attempt to state this using a multi-level, multi-dimensional “so that” chain:

Society/government will provide the proper funding so that teachers can do the following:

Teachers will spend a portion of their work schedule teaching, a portion of their work schedule developing positive and meaningful relationships with and learning alongside students, and another portion of their work schedule will be freed up, so that they have time available to be involved, to the extent desired, in the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education.

Teachers will request and receive money and resources so that they can be involved, to the extent desired, in the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education.

All teachers are teachers, so that all teachers can be, to the extent desired, involved in everything. (No teachers are excluded.)

All teachers will be, to the extent desired, involved in everything (in addition to teaching), including but not limited to the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education, so that teachers can do the following: (This connected outcome maps to everything that teachers do in the outcomes map).

Outcomes Framework

On the following page I present my Outcomes Framework for Theory of Change for Education, as developed thus far (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Outcomes Framework for Theory of Change for Education

Strategies and Interventions

Backwards mapping of outcomes for a theory of change must get more detailed and more specific, as questions of how are asked and answered. Exactly how are we going to do this? Exactly how are we going to do that? When impossibilities are presented, a theory of change responds with solutions, because thinking and invention are not limited to the confines of the present system or the present reality. The question to be asked is, “What needs to happen for this to happen?” Strategies and interventions “explain what the stakeholders are going to do to achieve their desired outcomes” (Center for Theory of Change, 2021). Everything that stakeholders do should lead directly to a connected outcome. Conducting this more detailed and specific backwards mapping and development of strategies and interventions reaches beyond the scope of my dissertation; however, here I will give some indication toward the kinds of thinking that will be required to continue this strategic planning process for my theory of change for education.

Reject All Exclusionary Practices

As strategies and interventions are designed and planned, we must ensure that we remain firmly rooted in our critical, anti-oppressive, and emancipatory framework, and that no exclusionary practices are introduced, so that all students have access and are included. The ramifications of this need to be considered structurally and thought through for each practice, because exclusion, a sense of entitlement, privilege, and power are “deeply entrenched in the structures of our society” (Shields, 2018, p. 61) and densely embedded into our thinking.

For example, the elimination of grades, GPAs, entrance exams and requirements, auditions, prerequisites, etc., means that new methods of accepting students into impacted schools and programs must be considered and designed, such as lotteries, needs assessments, and democratic mechanisms, until sufficient capacity is created. Auditions in the performing arts which tend to ensure only the most talented (or wealthy) get the best roles must give way to dual and triple casting, and sufficient opportunities for anyone who wishes to perform. “I think we could encourage more participation and boost student confidence if we did things differently” (Sophie). Similar approaches must be applied to advanced studies in other subject areas – for example, those we presently call “honors” and “advanced placement” (AP) courses, and “gifted and talented” (GATE) programs.

The elimination of grade levels means that students will engage in learning and activities in mixed-age groupings, and this will extend from P-12 through college (the line of demarcation will become blurred and potentially disappear). The stress- and anxiety-inducing atmosphere of education today (Dennis, Kerrie, Sophie), pushing students to learn at an aggressive pace, to start certain content earlier and earlier, to move through content in faster and faster timeframes, and to reach learning objectives in time to be tested on them, or to graduate, must give way to a collaborative atmosphere of learning driven by each student’s developmental readiness – as defined by the student – and interests. In the new model, a student will not need to learn algebra “by the end of eighth grade.” A student can learn algebra over an extended period, when they are ready, when they are interested, and in a manner that meets their needs. And just because a student “doesn’t do well” in a content area at one point in time in their life does not mean they cannot do well in that content area later on. The design of sequential learning and the sequencing of instruction, short and long term, must find its origins and purposes in each individual student. And since we will not need to teach to a timetable (or to a test), students can continue learning until they’ve reached mastery, even beyond what they might have learned in a traditional school.

The elimination of location and other circumstances as determinants of availability and access means that a more distributed model of education services must be designed and implemented (e.g., Berge & Clark, 2009; Burdette et al., 2013; Corry & Carlson-Bancroft, 2014; Foley, 1999; Visser et al., 2014). “The whole universe is our schoolhouse” (Shields, 2018, p. 102). This will require technology in some cases and transportation in others.

The insistence on and enforcement of both English-only instruction and non-religious-only education must be viewed as exclusionary practices in the new model and ended. We cannot include everyone if we are excluding some; and a new paradigm will assume the oppressive and dominating characteristics, attitudes, and actions of the old if some people, including their languages, beliefs, and cultures, are considered to be and are made to feel (intrinsically) inferior or the “Other” (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018).

English-only Instruction. English-only instruction must give way to bilingual instruction, multilingual instruction, full immersion, and other strategies for both language learning and content learning in whatever language the student desires or is interested in. We must fully address and reverse the cycles of fear, repression, and privilege perpetuated by and reinforced over generations of “English as the primary language” policies in the United States. Fear by the dominant (English-only-speaking) culture (people) of losing identity and privilege, and repression of the dominated cultures (peoples) through coercive education, blame (both placing blame and convincing people that they should be blamed), shame, and deficit judgments and behaviors toward them for not speaking (standard) English (only) from birth (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018) or learning it quickly in school, must give way to its opposite: enthusiasm and support for a multilingual society.

A review of state department of education websites reveals that some states have complex laws governing English language instruction. California passed a law in 1998 (Proposition 227) to establish strict rules regarding English-only instruction, banning many non-English-only approaches, and subsequently passed a new law in 2016 (Proposition 58) which remakes those rules in ways that are more supportive of bilingual and multilingual approaches. It is impossible to know what new laws might be passed in the future. This is certain: these laws privilege some while negating and dehumanizing others and include some while excluding others. They must be abolished.

Objections based on a sense of impossibility must be overcome first emotionally and then through the problem-solving and solution-finding process advocated by theory of change: backwards mapping of outcomes and creating so-that chains. Rather than closed-mindedly stating, “It can’t be done,” we must instead open-mindedly ask, “How can it be done?” “What needs to be in place for it to be done?” “What needs to change for it to be done?” Society has overcome entrenched objections in the past; for example, despite the weaknesses and failures of their designs and implementations (e.g., Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M., 2013), Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 (United States Courts, 2021) expanded the rights of the accused to receive state-provided counsel, and free appropriate public education (FAPE) laws in 1973 expanded the rights of students with special needs to receive additional state-provided services (United States Department of Education, 2010). Rather than quickly conceding, “Teachers would never agree to learn their students’ languages,” we must instead ask, “What kinds of teachers do we need to do this?” and, “What supports do teachers need to do this?” The suggestion is not intended to pile more work onto what teachers already have to do; the intent is to provide students with the right (bilingual and multilingual) teachers, and to provide time, space, and opportunity for monolingual teachers to learn alongside their students.

Separation of Church and State.

Could individual states soon be required to use taxpayers' money to pay for religious education, potentially siphoning scarce resources from public schools? (National Education Association, 2022b)

If you’re Muslim in our area, if you’re Jewish in our area, you go to the Quaker school. Because that’s where your faith and your holidays are going to be respected. (Eden)

Until and unless we serve all students regardless of social, economic, or cultural background, I believe educators are failing the community, the nation, and indeed, the whole global community. (Shields, 2018, p. 14)

The doctrine of the separation of church and state relative to education and schools likely will be presented as an argument against any education system which uses public funding for religious education. Without debating the merits of the argument, or the merits of the opposing side, or the concerns felt and expressed by those making either argument, I acknowledge and encourage that for my theory of change for education to be implemented as I have designed it, this concern will have to be overcome and let go. It will not be possible to include all students, to meet and satisfy the needs and desires of all students, to serve and fulfill the interests of all students, or to respect and honor all students, if we refuse to fund all education for all students.

According to my theory of change for education, all students are included, all students' needs, desires, and interests are met, satisfied, and fulfilled, and all students are respected and honored. Therefore, there should be no concern that resources will be scarce or siphoned from one place to another.

Succinctly: to include all students, we must include all students.

Reconsider Diplomas, Certificates, Promotions, Graduations, and Degrees

Each of these traditions is rooted in and stems from exclusionary practices. While it is true that some specialist professional activities should require certification and licensing, such as health care providers, pharmacists, attorneys, peace officers, machine operators, builders, inspectors, agents, brokers, researchers, some trainers, and others, it should also be recognized that many of these conferments serve other, often exclusionary, sometimes competitive, sometimes merely honorary, purposes. Each of these, if proposed, should be mapped directly to a connected outcome within the theory of change, or rejected as unsuitable and/or unnecessary. Also, as we eliminate grade levels, this opens the door for more possibilities for teachers to spend more time – more years – with students; there will be little justification for students “getting a new teacher” each year. “If you had the same teacher from kindergarten through twelfth grade, and then moved with that same group of students, and were able to fully develop them…” (Elise). Students potentially can spend many years with the same teacher, and this facilitates teachers’ developing relationships with and learning the home language of, the home culture of, and the home life of each and every student.

Rethink Curriculum, Subject Areas, and Core Subject Areas

As outcomes for education move away from test results and graduation rates – exclusionary statistics which disappear in the new model – and move toward fulfilling student needs, desires, and interests, the current ideas surrounding curriculum, subject areas, and core subject areas must be reconsidered. Literacy will remain important, math skills will remain important, the arts and sciences will remain important, but do they need to be compartmentalized into silos? And do they need to be ranked in order of “importance?” In the new model, what each student feels is important becomes important (Dennis, Kerrie). “We need to become comfortable with [what’s] important to our students. That’s social justice” (Sophie). To a student wanting to read comic books, reading comic books becomes important. To a student wanting to play the saxophone, playing the saxophone becomes important. To a student wanting to design video games, designing video games becomes important. One person can spend their whole lifetime developing and perfecting their musical ear and aural skills, another person can spend their whole lifetime improving their “sight reading” skills, and a third person can do both. Curriculum development and selection will take place more on a student-by-student basis, and “cross curricular” designs will take on greater importance. Can a student improve their reading, writing, and math skills by designing video games? Or by cooking? Or by building a skateboard ramp? Or by producing a rock concert? Project-based learning, problem-based learning, research-based learning, and other types of constructivist, experiential, and team-based learning strategies will become even more useful.

Arts, music, drama, dance, and other content areas formerly called “electives” and “specials” may become the center of a student’s learning, rather than the periphery. The school orchestra program will no longer need to be “cut in order to focus on math and science, thinking that’s the solution to everything” (Sophie). Skills and content that students want to learn and enjoy can aid in learning other content, too. “If I can teach rhythms or AB form or whatever through a Stevie Wonder song or a Beyonce song or you know, whatever is coming down the pike, I’m going to do that” (Kerrie). “The piano teacher’s students compose music for short films, and that’s their introduction to piano –they learn the keyboard as they are learning these other things” (Dennis). Possibilities include singing songs to aid in memorization, drawing to learn letters and develop fine motor skills, arts and crafts to create science and history projects, songwriting to express thoughts and emotions, and multimedia of all kinds to communicate ideas. Some teachers will benefit by gaining multiple subject expertise, others by partnering with subject matter experts using collaborative and co-teaching strategies, and some situations might require teacher referrals. “If they really want the heavy, heavy jazz, I send them to an actual jazz teacher” (Eden). Students might get the expertise they need from the right person at the right time.

The debates about what content is “most important” can end. “We get trapped in content conversation, and not in the big picture of what education is about” (Eden). Let’s acknowledge that there is limitless content in the world that can be learned; in addition, education is less about content and more about “the fact that it helps the person to discover themselves and to develop as a whole person” (Mary). Taking further cues from our discourse about music education: “It doesn’t have to be one-size-fits-all” (Kerrie); “What if they didn’t learn half notes?” (Elise); “Are there going to be dire consequences if our child does not learn about this one thing, or is it more important that they gain critical thinking skills?” (Sophie) Why should it matter if one student learns piano and another learns guitar, or the harp? Or as Eden asked, “Is it the worst thing if there’s a studio of children who all grow up masters of female music?” Pushed further into general education, why should it matter if one student dives into marine science and another into paleontology? Or if one student learns interesting things about ancient Egypt and contemporary England and another learns interesting things about ancient Persia and contemporary Mexico? No one can learn it all, not even at a trivial or introductory level. It may seem obvious that literacy and basic math skills are important to everyone, but it may not seem so obvious that musical or artistic skills, or interpersonal skills, or public speaking skills, or a different language, or even religious devotion for a specific child may be equally or even more important for that child. “None of my students get the same things” (Eden). Is it possible that we stifle the development of some children because of our emphasis on standards and forcing the same curriculum on all students? It seems so. Unless a child has money and resources and support – “Only the wealthy can afford music lessons'' (Sophie); “I wish I could teach kids whose families can’t afford lessons” (Mary) – it is unlikely that many will discover and develop from an early age those talents and interests that may have most benefited themselves and even society later in life (e.g., Eden, Steiner).

Many of today’s “non-traditional” schools, including Montessori, Waldorf, Reggio Emilia, Sudbury, homeschooling, and unschooling, and others, approach education from a self-directed, student-directed, child-directed orientation that encourages more play, exploration, and real experience trial and error (e.g., Avison & Rawson, 2019); Gray, 2013; Greenberg, 2016; Hainstock, 1986; Shields, 2018; Wilkinson, 1993). “Maybe we’re just there to teach them how to research? How to explore, how to be curious about something, how to organize stuff?” (Kerrie). Learning strategies in these schools include immersing students in a specific content area for extended periods of time – weeks or more – with malleable or student-determined end times, rather than the traditional bell schedule of daily 50-minute sessions (or in the case of music and arts, weekly 30-minute sessions).

“Oh, they didn’t learn Shakespeare.” “They didn’t learn Beethoven.” “They didn’t learn any pop music.” Or whatever else you could say for any of the other subjects. I think we get it so much in our heads, especially the older we get, like, “Well, we learned this and if you don’t learn this then what are you learning?” Can you not learn those same things from different mediums? I know sometimes as a teacher I feel, “No, they have to learn this!” But then I think, “Well, maybe they don’t.” Or maybe they need the overall skill, but do they have to do it the way I’m doing it? (Sophie)

Reduce Competitions

As strategies and interventions are designed and planned, competitions in schools should be reduced. This may happen organically to a degree, as conceptions of “school” as a place and time diminish and learning as a distributed and timeless activity expands. A student may play shortstop at one school and flute at another. School as a site to prepare students for “global competitiveness” grew out of objectives that are no longer goals of the new model; so, as Sophie suggests, “I suppose I see some value in competition, but why aren’t we putting more focus on appreciating what everybody has to bring to the table?” Competitions might exist when students desire them, but they should not become central to school life and learning, imposed upon students, or in Bob’s words, like anything we will do in education, “shoved down everyone’s throat.” Competition should not be a way of life for schools in that they perpetuate entitlement, privilege, and exclusion. The desire for schools and learning to provide upward social mobility, achievement, and/or admission to the right school or the right job, reduces education to a commodity (e.g., Labaree, 1997) and must become outdated thinking and inappropriate for our new education paradigm and desired outcomes. As R. Simmons, as cited in Shields (2018), suggested:

Education does not exist to provide you with a job. Education is here to nourish your soul. (p. 132)

Unintended Outcomes

An outcomes framework for a theory of change would be incomplete without a consideration of unintended consequences or unintended outcomes (Chen, 1990). Like assumptions and preconditions, unintended outcomes should be identified and documented as the theory of change is developed, and implemented, and where useful, might become part of the outcomes map.

For the purposes of my theory of change within my dissertation, I document here those unintended outcomes I have identified thus far as a simple list (rather than a map).

Education will become more democratic and less authoritarian, more grass roots and less top-down, because students will be the primary stakeholders, students’ needs, desires, and interests will be prioritized and individualized, student satisfaction will form the basis for the evaluation of attainment of education outcomes, and because teachers will be involved in everything, including the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education.

Boards of Education will become superfluous and unnecessary because students will be the primary stakeholders, students’ needs, desires, and interests will be prioritized and individualized, student satisfaction will form the basis for the evaluation of achievement of education outcomes, learning will be more distributed and less place-based or location-specific, and because teachers will be involved in everything, including the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education.

The complaint that too many education leaders, officials, policymakers, consultants, and others who impact education have “no experience in the classroom,” or no experience as teachers, will cease, because teachers will be involved in everything, including the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education. Said another way, everyone involved in education will be teachers (and students).

Teachers’ unions will become redundant because teachers will already be involved in everything, including the oversight, governance, administration, and operations of education.

Distinctions between public schools, private schools, charter schools, homeschooling, unschooling, afterschool programs, extracurricular activities, etc. will fade, because all education will be funded by society, even as all education is individualized to meet the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student; and all teaching and learning will be considered education. All education will be “public education” in one sense and “private education” in another. No education will be defined as “during school” versus “after school,” or as “curricular” versus “extracurricular.”

Definitions of who is a teacher will broaden, and teacher preparation programs, certifications, and credentialing may require rethinking. Many people who are not considered teachers by our formal public education system will be considered teachers in the new paradigm. Teachers teach in schools and classrooms, in private studios, in community centers, in churches, in business training rooms, on sports fields, in recreation spaces, online, and in many other places, including homes (parents who homeschool or unschool, for example) (P. Palmer, 2007; Wheatley, 2009). Teachers can and should be recruited and drawn from students’ local cultural and linguistic communities, and credentialing programs as enforced today sometimes erect repressive barriers that are both unhelpful and unnecessary. All these teachers must be recognized as teachers, invited to be involved in everything related to education, and encouraged to share experience and expertise with other teachers. No teacher will be considered an “outsider” or less valuable or important than any other teacher (all teachers are teachers, involve them in everything; trust in teachers and the teaching profession; respect and honor teachers).

It is worth noting that many students are also teachers. It is not at all uncommon for children and young adults to become teachers at early ages. Several study group participants, I included, began teaching music to children and adults as teenagers. Many youths tutor, and many students serve as teaching assistants and even teach their own classes. Many older children read to younger children and teach them any number of things, from games and sports to computer technology to language and culture. And, as we’ve discussed, students teach their teachers, who learn alongside them. When students are teachers, they are teachers, and should be, to the extent desired, included and involved in everything.

Violence, bullying, and forms of abuse against children may be reduced because children will be listened to, heard, not silenced, not required to be excessively compliant, and will be less immersed in a competitive atmosphere or one where only privilege, power, and money gain access, resources, and stature. Students may gain confidence in speaking up, speaking out, and objecting to abusive and unfair treatment from others (e.g., McLaren, 1986/1999). Students learning in anti-oppressive environments of their own construction along with their teachers will be actively participating in their own liberation (Freire, 1970/2018). Students from all cultures and walks of life may become more comfortable learning, playing, and working together (e.g., hooks, 2010; Mirra et al, 2016; Nieto, 2002).

The school-to-prison pipeline (e.g., Fine, 1991) may be reduced because children will not be trained to function in a prison-like environment at school, will not be spoken to in a similar language as “to inmates at a prison” (Sophie), will not be suspended, expelled, or excluded in any other way from participating in education and learning activities that meet, satisfy, and fulfill their needs, desires, and interests, and will be respected and honored.

Assumptions and Preconditions

Assumptions and preconditions should be identified and documented as the outcomes framework is developed and refined. At this time in my dissertation, I identify the following set of assumptions and preconditions:

• That humanity, as a whole, works ever toward the good.

• That teachers have good intentions and are committed to justice and inclusion for all students and for all peoples in society.

• That schools (run by teachers in the new education model) have good intentions and are committed to justice and inclusion for all students and for all peoples in society.

• That “all students” means each and every student living in society who seeks education or learning, regardless of any status, standing, category, condition, circumstance, or any other attribute.

• That it is less that teachers would not want to learn more about each and every student’s home language, home culture, and home life, and more that state governments, policymakers, and administrators at present discourage and prevent it, in part through laws and in part through teaching arrangements that require teachers to teach narrow content within tight (impacted) schedules and stressful, anxiety-laden learning environments. Given opportunity, resources, and support, teachers would want to learn alongside their students.

• That meritocracy, and beliefs, assumptions, or expectations that education, achievement, success, advancement, promotion, and/or the development of knowledge and skills are, can be, or should be based on ability or otherwise “earned” or “deserved” is recognized as both myth and generally unsuitable for society.

• That society cannot make a contract with children regarding education; that education cannot be an “if…then…else” situation; that education must be freely provided by society to all children (at minimum); and that, therefore, the desired outcomes for education (of children at minimum) cannot carry future obligations or impositions.

On one hand, these (and likely other) assumptions and preconditions need to be actualized and in place. On the other hand, it is neither likely nor necessary that all these assumptions and preconditions be fully actualized and in place before any work can begin or any progress made. For example, I have experienced, and others have related they have experienced, that some teachers hold beliefs and/or behave in ways that are racist, classist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and/or exclusive rather than inclusive of all students and peoples in society. This is problematic for my theory of change for education. However, several aspects of my theory of change work toward solving this problem, as it is being enacted. One, teachers and students, inquiring, collaborating, learning, and generating knowledge together as human beings in freer, more democratic, autonomous, and self-directed ways that open spaces and provide opportunities for transformation, might experience transformation and become, over time, closer in thought and behavior to the ideals of the assumptions and preconditions. Two, the need to grasp for and hold on to resources, money, privilege, and power (often the root of these evils) within education might lessen as people realize that more and more everyone is receiving what they need and desire, that their interests are being served, that they are being respected and honored, and that the formerly important competitive edge over others is unnecessary, even useless: it neither causes them to lose anything of importance nor does it get them anything extra. Three, children grow up to become adults. Children growing up learning within an inclusive rather than exclusive, freer and more democratic rather than authoritarian education system and environment might bring renewed spirit and energy against incorrect thinking and wrongdoing and toward healthier values and perspectives to society and in their own lives, not through “indoctrination” as so many seem to fear, but through a personal desire to reproduce their lived learning experiences (e.g., Dewey, Freire, Greene, hooks, Sandoval) and co-create a better society.

Indicators

Indicators are essentially data collected to measure outcomes. As an outcomes framework becomes more detailed, it may be useful to identify indicators. For the purposes of my dissertation, I do not explicitly identify indicators beyond those already noted above for the three highest level outcomes. We could examine certain data in the future, as we do now. For example, we could survey the number of bilingual citizens (this number would presumably rise). We could count the number of teachers unions in operation and the number of teachers who are union members (these numbers would presumably fall). We could count the numbers of reported cases of bullying or victims of abuse in school settings, and we could count the numbers of incarcerated youth, etc. However, in identifying indicators we need to be careful not to lose focus on desired outcomes, not to become mired in data and statistics which may be useful, or distracting, or misleading, or harmful, and not to start designing and implementing new assessments and evaluations that reward the wrong things or reintroduce exclusionary practices. As Kerr (1995) observed,

Numerous examples exist of reward systems that are fouled up in that the types of behaviors rewarded are those which the rewarder is trying to discourage, while the behavior desired is not being rewarded at all. (p. 7)

Implementation

Team and Organization

A program implemented by skillful and enthusiastic implementors may have results quite different from the same program implemented by unskilled or indifferent implementors. (Chen, 1990, p. 118)

It is well past time to accept and endorse that the true experts on education are the teachers and students in the classroom, not the board members or policy makers who rarely step onto campus. (Wrenn, 2021, p. 151)

My theory of change must be implemented by teachers, not only by definition (teachers are involved in everything) but also because they are the skillful people, they are the enthusiastic people, they are the ones continuously learning alongside students, they are the people with the primary stakeholders’ needs, desires, and interests at heart, and they are the people we (in our new paradigm) trust. Teachers are the people with the most practical knowledge about education and teaching and should be included in, and govern, all decision-making processes (e.g., Lechleiter-Luke, 2019). Because of the scope of education on one hand and the grassroots, organic nature of my theory of change on the other, I propose that teams of teachers assemble within communities to implement my theory of change for education. Communities need not be defined by geography, although sometimes they can be. Other times, communities can be defined by needs, interests, or other things. Facebook groups, for example, include global communities of people with similar interests. Our study group included music teachers from across the country. Teacher-organized communities will not need to delineate borders or mark territories (other than, perhaps, within the United States – but even this could evolve and expand over time, if doing so contributed directly to connected outcomes). Teacher-organized communities can overlap; students and teachers can participate in various communities; teachers and students can work together across and among communities.

As communities form and grow, and in order to interact with society / government who provides funding, a broader organization and structure likely will emerge. This broader organization is not imagined here in detail, except to reinforce that it should be designed, developed, and implemented by teachers, using democratic principles, transformative leadership strategies (Northouse, 2016; Shields, 2018), and ensuring that everything directly contributes to the achievement of the new desired outcomes. In every aspect of implementation, leaders must resist any temptation to “utilize the same procedures used by the dominant elites to oppress” (Freire, 1970/2000, p. 166). “What distinguishes revolutionary leaders from the dominant elite is not only their objectives, but their procedures. If they act in the same way, the objectives become identical” (Freire, 1970/2000, p. 167).

Funding

Fundamental to any implementation of education is funding, and my theory of change for education is no exception. How will the new education system be funded? How will there be enough money to put everything in place that will be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes as defined by the new paradigm? Creating a funding plan and budget for education is beyond the scope of my dissertation. However, I will give some indications toward ways of thinking that might be useful when considering funding.

For our present system, we spend substantial sums of money on things that will no longer be necessary or useful in the new system. Examples that have already been identified include the full range of activities that support standards, assessments, grades, GPAs, entrance exams, promotions, diplomas, etc. – that is, all the money that we currently spend on excluding students. This money can instead be spent on including students. Reduced bureaucracy is another potential: at least some of the layers of the organizational structures, people, systems, and activities that presently govern education might be eliminated. Money spent on boards of education, administrator offices and salaries, “chancellors and deputy chancellors” (Elise), teachers’ unions, and some elections might be reallocated. We might build and staff fewer prisons.

In our present system, money is either collected from people and distributed to schools through federal and state mechanisms such as aid programs, grants, loans, and property taxes / local funding formulas, or given directly to schools or individual teachers as payment for private instruction (in many forms). Either way, inequality is exacerbated, and access is denied to some students (who are excluded). “I guess it’s essentially a business. It’s just unfortunate that many kids fall through the cracks. They don’t have the money; they don’t have the support” (Kerrie). In the new system, my theory of change requires that each and every student has access to everything that any other student has access to, and that each and every student receives what they need, desire, or are interested in, regardless of whether anyone else has that same need, desire, or interest. For example, if a student wishes to attend a particular school, then they will attend that school, regardless of its location or type, at no charge to the student. If a student wishes to receive piano lessons, then they will receive piano lessons, at no charge to the student. If a student wishes to play soccer or basketball in a particular league, then they will play soccer or basketball in that league, regardless of any variables, at no charge to the student. If a student wishes to learn, or learn in, a particular language, they will receive useful instruction in that language, at no charge to the student. It is important to emphasize that location is irrelevant.

To accomplish these things, there will be other concerns and potentials besides funding alone. For example, technology. With the goal of meeting student needs and satisfying student interests at the fore, technology can enable forms of distributed education that will help. Virtual instruction, videos, study groups, online communities, and more increase the possibilities and may help reduce costs in many situations. (That said, I am not an advocate for all online learning; much learning is far more effective, valuable, and only possible in live spaces with live people.) The bottom line is, we’re going to need to be creative.

One of the good things about Zoom, one of the positives coming out of a very dark time, is the idea of bringing more outside people into my classroom via Zoom. A few years ago, my school did pen pals with a school in another state, and we did a Skype call with someone. But now, Zoom is a normal thing, and so we can bring in people, for example, local working musicians, or even anyone worldwide who’s willing to visit our classroom online and talk to the kids. (Elise)

In addition to technology, transportation will need to be provided upon request and by design.

One might ask, how do we (society) ensure that we are “getting our money’s worth?” In answering this question, we must make sure we are seeking our answers from within the outcomes framework. For example, if our goals are that each and every student is included, each and every student’s needs, desires, and interests are met, and each and every student is respected and honored, then we cannot assess the value of our spending using test scores, graduation rates, or bodies in seats. Society, or government, must assume more transformative and less transactional approaches to leadership (Northouse, 2016; Shields, 2018) and measurement in the realm of education, and strive to empower, nurture, and encourage rather than dangle rewards and punishments in exchange for effort and “results.” It will help to remember that we have put students and teachers directly in charge of the system that serves them; together they run the system in and of which they are the stakeholders – self-directed, empowered – truly participating in their own liberation (e.g., Freire, 1970/2018; Frisby et al., 2009; hooks, 2010; Sandoval, 2000).

Community Support

In addition to funding, community support will be required. I have so far identified four forms of community support: from families, from employers, from “higher education,” and from community organizations. Some of this community support surrounds the issue of daycare: What do parents who have to work do with their children if they do not go to a traditional school site all day, five days a week?

Families

Families, including parents and guardians, should support, advocate for, trust, respect, and honor students, teachers, and the teaching profession. It will be beneficial if families will participate in the life of schools and educational settings to the extent possible, and teachers must make this easier. Families should get together with other families in the community to arrange day care, outings, group activities, carpools, and other assistance (like what many homeschooling families and communities do today) so that parents can work at a job and support their children’s education in a less place-based, more distributed environment without having to worry as much about daycare.

Employers

Employers should provide support in at least four ways. First, employers should reduce or eliminate degree requirements and expectations for job applicants, for employee promotions, and from within employee wage and salary schedules. It is illusory that these degrees, including advanced degrees, necessarily predict anything with any certainty (e.g., hooks, 1994), and they ignore other valuable kinds of (funds of) knowledge and experience (assets), often privileging, including, and further enriching some while marginalizing and excluding others. Certain positions will require certification, but the generic preset and exclusionary requirement of “a high school diploma,” “a college degree,” or a degree from a favored institution should be dropped in favor of considering actual needs of the business relative to the position, the business’s core values and mission, the qualities of the applicant, and the needs of the community. Aggressively recruit employees from within marginalized communities and provide more on-the-job training, learning opportunities, and professional development of the kinds discussed in this dissertation. All this will help the new education model as it eliminates un-useful and exclusionary practices such as grades, diplomas, graduations, and degrees, and simultaneously will improve communities and society.

Second, employers should expand options for employees with children to telecommute and work from home, so that parents can work at a job and support their children’s education in a less place-based, more distributed environment without having to worry as much about daycare. Third, employers should expand facilities and amenities for both on-site childcare and educational programs, offering opportunities, technologies, and other supports for children at their parent’s or guardian’s workplace. Fourth, employers should consider their employee training and development activities as part of education and follow the theory of change for education model. For example, employers should strive to ensure all employees have access, all employees are included, all employees are supported in following their interests, and all employees are respected and honored. Employers should trust in teachers and in the teaching profession and encourage and provide opportunities for their teachers and trainers to participate in the life of education outside the workplace.

“Higher Education”

“Higher education” consists of a loose network of exclusionary academic institutions and educational service providers. Like P-12 education, “higher education” should end all exclusionary practices. This means, for example, eliminating entrance exams and other requirements, including auditions, as a starting point. Some universities, including the University of California (UC) system, are moving in this direction. In 2021, UC eliminated exams (SAT/ACT) from admissions and scholarship award decisions (University of California, n.d.). Some universities accept student work portfolios in place of grades, GPAs, and transcripts. Colleges and universities should accept and teach any and all students who wish to learn, regardless of subject matter, regardless of prior education, regardless of “achievement” in all its forms, and regardless of ability. (Community colleges offer the best example of this kind of thinking currently, if imperfect.) This will help the new education model as it eliminates exclusionary practices such as grades, diplomas, graduations, and degrees. The trophies resulting from these and other exclusionary practices in “higher education” are permeated with falsehood, unreliability, unfairness, and corruption anyway (e.g., Amigud & Lancaster, 2020; Hermanowicz, 2019; hooks, 1994; Mortati & Carmel, 2021). What do they really mean? Whether it’s cheating, grade inflation, admissions scandals, buying degrees, having money to attend a school that others cannot (perpetuating the cycle of privilege and inequity), or the fact that the name of the university often means more on a diploma than any actual learning that occurred, or did not occur. “[C]lass politics and class struggle shapes who will receive graduate degrees in our society” (hooks, 1994, p. 189). “Merit in U.S. higher education has lost meaning” (Hermanowicz, 2019, p. 343). Even the value of accreditation is challenged, for example, as too often “fall[ing] prey to the notion of inspection and the power of the Panopticon, as participants attend more to avoiding scrutiny or criticism than to significant and meaningful quality” (Shields, 2018, p. 58).

The focus of college should be to learn, not to get a degree. There will be exceptions, as noted previously, in that some areas of expertise require certification. And I am not suggesting that every person is ready for a particular instruction. For example, a beginning piano student may not be ready for advanced piano instruction. But this does not mean that a beginning piano student should not be able to enter a university and receive instruction in piano simply because they cannot pass a “piano audition” or “music theory test.” The student should be able to receive instruction at the university beginning at the level they are at.

In the best-case scenario, my theory of change for education will include “higher education.” Today already, there is some blending, such as when high school students take college classes, or receive college credit for honors courses, AP exams, etc. In addition, some students enter college as children. Universities, of course, like P-12 education in the United States, operate from a basis of exclusionary practices. These practices extend beyond previously discussed exams, auditions, and other entrance requirements to tuition and a host of other expenses, to conferring degrees, to hiring, promoting, and granting tenure. In the new education paradigm, all education should be free to students, including “higher education” at both public and private institutions. There should be no student loan debt.

Community Organizations

Community organizations should provide support in a similar manner as families and employers, above. Many community and civic centers, parks and recreation, and non-profit organizations today offer educational opportunities of all kinds, for example, classes, exercise programs, sports and other afterschool activities, theatrical productions, summer camps, and more. These should all be considered under the umbrella of education and should all be free and accessible to everyone. In addition, community organizations should provide amenities and services, including transportation, to help families in the realm of daycare. Children might spend part of their day in a structured learning environment and part of their day in unstructured play at a community center. Communities might consider a “full-service” approach wherein “community, neighborhood, and governmental services are all present at the same [location] as the school and coordinated for students and families” (Shields, 2018, p. 122).

Transformation

As discussed previously, transformation is something that happens, not something that is “done to” or “done for.” We cannot transform students, we cannot transform teachers, we cannot transform schools or other institutions, any more than we can “intrinsically motivate” them (Bob, Dennis). What we can do is provide space and opportunity for transformation to occur. My theory of change for education, with its emphasis on access and inclusion, interests, autonomy, self-determination, collaboration, and distributed, lifelong learning for both students and teachers, is designed to provide that space and opportunity.

Transformation in and of itself is not considered an outcome, not even an unintended outcome, because although transformation is important and desirable, and can provide a stimulus to new thinking, it is, as I have defined herein, intangible, immeasurable, personal, fluid, and an impetus – sometimes a new beginning – rather than an end. Like learning, it is something that we want to take place – and it can take place in big ways and little ways – but not something we want to start ranking, classifying, assessing, or evaluating. Our theory of change strives to eliminate these types of deleterious practices from education.

Concerns and Potential Arguments

Some of the “concerns and potential arguments” discussed next as well as within other components of this discussion and my dissertation might evolve into assumptions or preconditions as the outcomes framework continues to be developed and refined.

On Scope and Magnitude

A key part of an anti-racist education is the ability to imagine, or the space to imagine, something better than what we have now. (Elise)

We need to take the lens way out. (Bob)

We just need bigger ears. We need bigger imaginations. (Kerrie)

Possibility is neither forever nor instant. It is not easy to sustain belief in its efficacy. (Lorde, 2018, p. 3)

It feels like there’s so little you can do about any of the big problems as an individual person. There are so many things we talk about in these meetings that should change and could change, all the different things we could do, but when you think about the social momentum that would have to take place in order to change a lot of these things, and the years it would take – many of the things we talk about would take good chunks of our lifetimes, if not the rest of our lifetimes – even if they were worthwhile ideas that had any longevity. (Sophie)

Is my theory of change for education too grandiose? Is its scope too broad, its goals too far reaching, its notions too idealistic, quixotic – am I tilting at windmills? Would the effort be too great? Would it cost too much money? There is little doubt these feelings would be felt by many, and arguments made. “We could never do something that big.” “We would never get sufficient buy-in.” “Not enough people would be willing to spend that much money.” All these feelings and arguments have validity and may be true. I would suggest, however, that education is one of the most important things we do as human beings. Fighting and winning world wars, and cold wars, and surviving global pandemics, are evidence that we can do big things. Landing on the moon and the subsequent space program, bailing out banks and corporations too big to fail, and providing the financial assistance necessary to come back from a global pandemic are evidence that we can spend massive amounts of money when we need to. And after all, we put the existing education system in place, and have spent massive amounts of money reforming it again and again. I cannot prove it, but I suspect we could create a new education paradigm if we saw the benefit – if we really wanted to achieve the outcomes identified herein. And, perhaps it would help, as Elise suggested, if we could just “unplug ourselves from the matrix:”

It made me realize how so many parts of our education system are so ingrained in us, the same way white supremacy is ingrained in us, and we argue against it, or we argue for it, until we realize how messed up things really are, but you have to get unplugged from the matrix before you can start to see the different perspectives. (Elise)

On Teachers and Schools with Different vs. Harmful Values and Perspectives

As discussed previously, teachers and schools will think differently, and some likely will express, demonstrate, manifest, and instigate incorrect thinking and wrongdoing in the form of racism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and exclusion rather than inclusion in education, even as the new paradigm is emerging. Teachers and the teaching profession must work aggressively toward eliminating incorrect thinking and wrongdoing within education. Solutions must be discovered and invented and built into the structure of the new model (become systemic) as teachers and students further develop the outcomes framework. At the same time, we must recognize the difference between thinking that is different and thinking that is harmful – and there will be disagreement. What teachers should not (cannot) do is ask society to trust in teachers and the teaching profession when/if the teaching profession itself does not trust in teachers and the teaching profession. Teachers must trust, honor, and respect teachers, and also be able to depend upon each other, including teachers who teach, critique, challenge, and think differently. Lorde (2018) wrote:

Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become unthreatening…. Difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged. (p. 18).

Difference, interdependency, and relationships are frequently discussed in relation to learning and transformation. “Developing relationships facilitates learning” (Shields, 2018, p. 75), dialogue is critical to trusting relationships, and dialogue creates space and opportunity for transformation. “An idea give[s] birth to new ideas only when it enters into genuine dialogical relationships with other, foreign, ideas” (Bakhtin, 1973, p. 71). “Without dialogue, there are no new ideas, no real understanding… no real living” (Shields, 2018, p. 43). Dialogue requires trust, equality, mutual respect and love, care and commitment, and humility and faith (Freire, 1970/2018). All teachers are teachers; involve them in everything. Just as music programs and classrooms must not silence student voices and exclude “troublemakers,” teachers must carefully consider the extent to which they will seek to silence and exclude troublesome teachers. That said, as teachers, schools, and society must address hate and bullying, so teachers, schools, and society must address hate, abuse, and wrongdoing in all education.

Managing both may be challenging; and here I share an example of this challenge. Shields (2018) discussed the issue of the de-skilling of teachers in her outstanding and compelling book on transformative leadership in education:

When educators have never discussed the goals of education, we are failing not only our students, but our society. When we reduce teacher training to a series of strategies and skills related to the technical aspects of teaching, lesson planning, unit development, and classroom management, we lose focus on creating…exciting and challenging learning environments for students… and we imply, if we do not always state it bluntly, that we do not believe either educators or students have the capacity or creativity required to succeed. (p. 72)

Shields (2018) further reminded us that “the heart of education lies not with programs, but with people” (p. 73), provided several stories illustrating how individualized instruction could dramatically enhance a child’s learning, and rallied against packaged programs, mandated forms of assessment, and scripts:

It is clear to me that packaged programs would not have engaged Aaron… Too often, as educators focus on a mandated form of assessment, a prescribed intervention, or on a scripted sequence of strategies and questions, we emphasize the technical, and in so doing, both deskill teachers and lose the heart of education – the relationships – between and among people and between students and the amazing content they have the opportunity to explore. (pp. 73-74)

Conversely, later in the book, Shields (2018) described a situation where a principal focused her work on improving her school by addressing difficult issues of equity and achievement gaps. Part of her strategy was to “empower her teachers to make pedagogical decisions” (p. 121). But then, “Nevertheless, once teachers decide on an approach… she carefully monitors its implementation so it becomes the core instruction throughout the school, and not subject to the whim of individual teachers to implement at will” (p. 122). The contradiction, despite intentions, is apparent. Importantly, phrases such as “the whim of individual teachers,” especially when made publicly and recurrently, damage society’s perceptions of and trust in teachers. Teachers must trust, respect, and honor teachers, include all teachers, and involve all teachers in everything, while also addressing incorrect thinking and wrongdoing within the profession. The solution I propose relies more on teacher solidarity, collaboration, teamwork, advocating together, learning together, and creating space and opportunity for transformation within the teaching profession and within an uncompromisingly inclusive education paradigm, and less on authoritarian, standardized, and exclusive approaches.

I think society sometimes mixes up healthy criticism of teachers, versus just being nasty toward teachers. I feel like there does have to be a healthy criticism – what we do and how we could do better. But oftentimes it devolves to just being angry at teachers, for various political and economic reasons. They’re letting all of these other things influence their view of teachers and who teachers are, instead of looking exactly at what teaching is, and what our goal is. (Sophie)

On Corruption and Profit Motive

As mentioned elsewhere, a frequent argument against a new idea goes something like, “If we do that, then this bad thing will happen.” But often, when we look more closely and honestly, we see that this bad thing is already happening in the present context. In that spirit, I offer a few thoughts about corruption and profit motive.

The potential for corruption exists in virtually every system, every organization, every institution, every person, every activity. Whether it is the federal government, the local school board, the workers compensation system, the court system, the Catholic church, a military tribunal, a union, a bank, a textbook publisher, a neighborhood market, the local public school, or a student who contemplates cheating, all are subject to levels of corruption. An argument, then, that claims we should not implement a new system because there would be the potential for corruption, must be rejected. At the same time, a new system should be designed incorporating elements, such as transparency and checks and balances, that both discourage and reveal corruption.

The profit motive exists in virtually all human endeavors. With exceptions, most people, to degree, are motivated by money. In fact, we teach students in our schools to be motivated by money; we teach them to work hard and to study hard so that they can achieve, win, succeed, have good careers, earn lots of money, improve the economy, and become globally competitive. Our present education system is driven by profit motive, in one form and degree or another, whether it is public education or private education, and whether that motive is acknowledged or not. Whether it is high salaries, large budgets, promotions, prestige, tenure, fundraising, tuition, revenue for publishers, authors, testing and assessment firms, consultants, think tanks, or people striving to live in the best neighborhoods in order to attend the best schools, or even schools completing the requirements and procedures to become designated a distinguished school in order to attract those wealthier families, increase funding, and help raise property values, these are all profit motives. An argument, then, that claims we should not implement a new system because there would be the potential for profit motive, must be rejected. At the same time, a new system should be designed incorporating elements, such as transparency and checks and balances, that both discourage and reveal profit motive.

On Dismantling and Transference of Oppression

It is imperative that the design, development, and implementation of a new education paradigm does not carry harmful and oppressive practices from the old into it, or if it does, by accident or otherwise, that these (what might become) remnants of the past are identified and eliminated quickly. That we do not simply reproduce oppressive systems “is one of the most serious problems the revolution must confront when it reaches power. This stage demands maximum political wisdom, decision, and courage from the leaders” (Freire, 1970/2018, p. 158). Leadership and the people, teachers and students, “must develop and continue the practice of permanent dialogue, and consolidate the participation of the people in power” (Freire, 1970/2018, p. 160). As Lorde (2018) stated for women, perhaps for teachers and students, too,

the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection which is so feared by the patriarchal [dominating, exclusionary] world. Interdependency between women [teachers and students] is the way to a freedom which allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but in order to be creative” (p. 17).

Limitations

A limitation of my study and my theory of change for education is that desired outcomes are best defined, determined, and agreed upon by the leadership and development team. I am an individual crafting this study. Although I strove to incorporate the words and intentions of my study group participants, we never specifically discussed theory of change by name, or desired outcomes for all education in the context of a theory of change, or how I would use the study group data other than for the general purpose of writing a dissertation. I made one promise to write about the benefits to teachers of participating more regularly in a study group like ours, which I have done. I have endeavored to center and even champion the voices of participants and the content of the study group discussions, but ultimately the recommendations, desired outcomes, and formulations within my theory of change for education are my own.

The theme from my data analysis, everyone’s white, manifested in our study group as well. All the participants were white. The leadership, stakeholders, decision-making, design, development, and implementation teams working on the outcomes framework for my theory of change for education, in actual practice, must include substantial and full participation from all groups and peoples, especially – predominantly – including all those who have been historically and are presently excluded. The oppressed, marginalized, sidelined, ostracized, criminalized, minoritized, unrecognized, and/or underrepresented peoples must lead the change. As Freire (1970/2018) instructed, “For development to occur it is necessary: a) that there be a movement of search and creativity having its seat in the searcher; b) that this movement occur not only in space, but in the existential time of the conscious searcher” (pp. 160-161). Those who formerly were sidelined and pushed out must become the center in the new paradigm.

Data collected from one group of music teachers cannot necessarily be generalized. In addition, the one group of music teachers participating in the study do not represent a random sample – all were self-selected because they wanted to be involved and discuss topics of social justice, equity, and culturally responsive teaching. What if teachers who were uninterested in or opposed to social justice and related pedagogies joined the study group? What if some of the participating teachers agreed with the advice of the music teacher who suggested I focus on teaching music and stop whining?

Further Research Potential

Throughout my dissertation I asked many questions. Some of those questions may prove useful to other researchers and/or students seeking to develop or refine research questions related to similar or follow-up studies. To facilitate this, I included a list of “all the questions” – that is, all the questions asked within the content of this dissertation, arranged in chronological order – at the end of this report (see Appendix F).

Recommendations and Next Steps

In addition to the general and specific recommendations referencing the themes posed as actionable items expressed in this chapter, Chapter 4, Chapter 7, and elsewhere in this dissertation, with respect to my theory of change for education, I encourage the following:

Let’s assemble teams of stakeholders (as defined herein) from across the country and from all types of schools, teaching practices, learning spaces, and communities to continue developing the outcomes framework begun herein.

Let’s conduct feasibility studies related to the possibilities of implementing and funding a new education system based on the outcomes framework.

Let’s get together and start now; talk with, work with, and build coalitions with other teachers, students, schools (of all kinds, including homeschool communities), districts, school boards, local governments, and state governments, in efforts to move these ideas forward. Let’s demand to be heard, to be included, and to be involved in everything. Let’s form teacher communities of inquiry, and meet regularly to discuss topics of social justice, equity, culturally responsive pedagogies, access, inclusion, student interests, teaching, the teaching profession, and education as a scientific discipline. Let’s work for change within existing structures with an eye toward creating spaces and opportunities for transformation and the emergence of a new paradigm, start our own grassroots, collaborative, democratic, distributed, and student-and-teacher-directed schools and other education models that employ strategies designed to achieve the primary outcomes defined in my theory of change for education, and support (and trust, respect, and honor) all teachers in all teaching contexts. As hooks (1994) counseled, “it is crucial that critical thinkers who want to change our teaching practices talk to one another, collaborate in discussion that crosses boundaries and creates space for intervention” (p. 129).

Summary and Conclusion

In this dissertation I began with questions. Questions about social justice, social justice pedagogies, and transformative learning in music education. Within a framework of critical feminism and anti-oppression, emancipatory education, inquiry as stance, and theory of change, I formed a study group of teachers that would discuss these and related topics with an eye toward sharing knowledge and experience, asking more questions, gaining new insights, and improving practice.

Through the work of this adolescent music education study group, we often expanded the scope of our questioning, our critique, and our search for answers and solutions to include not just music education but all education. From my data analysis I composed a screenplay with running commentary and bonus features which strove to give voice and context to the content and meaning of study group participants, and formed a list of general and specific recommendations for actions we should take to improve [music] education and create an educational environment where transformations might occur. The core of these recommendations involves students and teachers:

• Prioritize access, inclusion, and interests: Serve the needs, desires, and interests of each and every student; respect and honor students.

• Develop positive and meaningful relationships with students.

• Trust teachers and the teaching profession; respect and honor teachers.

From this core I developed a theory of change for education structurally (systemically) designed to include each and every student. To accomplish this, all the foundational exclusionary practices, policies, and procedures that underpin and define our education system today must end. A new model for education must be inclusive from the ground up. The current system cannot be reformed because it was designed and built to be exclusive; so instead of trying to make incremental or continuous “improvements” or “reforms” to a system which exists to serve opposing goals, a new paradigm must emerge and develop side by side with the old and ultimately replace it.

My theory of change shifts desired outcomes away from corporatist, statist, and nationalist goals expressed as student achievement and competitiveness, and toward human goals of inclusion, service to, and respect and honor of each and every student. Rather than educating students with the expectation that they will then go “do something” for society, for the economy, for the state, for the nation, or for the world, we should educate students for their own benefit, for their own learning, and even for their own enjoyment. Rather than teaching children who will carry expectations of “owing something” as adults, we should teach children who will enter adulthood in freedom.

My theory of change identified teachers, in collaboration with students, as the people who should design, develop, implement, and oversee all of education in all its forms. For this to happen, and iteratively as a result of this happening, society must/will increasingly trust teachers and the teaching profession, and respect and honor teachers. As teachers develop positive and meaningful relationships with students, learn alongside students, collaborate amongst themselves and with their students, and end the vast array of exclusionary practices that define education today, the desired outcomes of the new education framework might be achieved. We might create, and live in, as Freire and hooks had hoped, education as the practice of freedom.