Instituto Lumiar

As clearly described in the presentation of the Pedagogical Proposal, Lumiar Schools have basically two types of professionals. More details will be provided below on this fascinating issue.

At the same time that conventional schools demand far too much from their teachers, from another viewpoint, they paradoxically demand too little.

We may suppose that the teacher’s job (regardless of how this function may be referred to) was created based on the need for someone to help children to learn and, as a consequence, to develop.

For thousands of years, children learned everything they had to learn at home or within their family circle. The teacher, therefore, was the family: mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, elder brothers and sisters, more experienced cousins… In a relatively simplified context where this all took place, the family members had, as a group, everything it took to help younger members to learn and develop. The group mastered the content of everything that should or needed to be learned:

Firstly from the practical viewpoint: language (at first only spoken language for a long time and then, although not in all families, reading and writing), the foundations of arithmetic, the practical skills require to run the family business: the outdoor activities (generally hunting, fishing, plowing, raising animals, etc), were generally assigned to men and household chores: (homemaking, cooking, doing the laundry, sewing, knitting, embroidering, etc.) were typically assigned to women.
Secondly, still on practical aspects, but at a “higher level”: the “art of living” or the principles and rules that govern morality, spiritual live and (maybe not at such a high level) aesthetics.

To a certain degree, the first component refers to a discussion which would hardly deserve to be raised, while the second one was really regarded as relevant, considering the fact that it involved preparing children to lead their lives not only in this life, but also presumably in the future one…

The “art of living” would generally involve:

Moral education: help children understand the difference between what is morally right and morally wrong [concept], and understand (or simply accept) what makes a particular action to be regarded as morally right or morally wrong [criterion], classify different actions as morally right or morally wrong or morally indifferent [according to the criterion] and most importantly, do what is morally right and not to do what is morally wrong;
Spiritual education: [especially among Christians] help children understand that we have a body but we are a soul, that our soul outlives the death of the body and that based on how we behave in our earthy life, we will be rewarded or punished in our future lives and that, therefore, it is important to read (and listen to) the scriptures, pray in order to ask for divine guidance, go to church, etc.
Aesthetic education: [typically oriented to girls] help children develop some of fine manners and appreciate arts, learn to draw, paint, sing, play a musical instrument and, in general, appreciate beauty and avoid ugliness.

As life became ever more complex, family had to resort to external, specialized agents to support it in the task of helping children to learn everything deemed necessary and worth learning. It was in this context that the function of teacher was created – it was in this context that the modern school with its “congregation of teachers” (expression used up to the current days) was invented.

There were many factors which led to such development – some of them, however, are especially important and came about around the XV Century and throughout XVI and XVII Centuries: the invention of the typecasting press and the boom of written texts resulting from such invention (and the birth of literature in most modern languages), the discovery of unknown locations around the world, the Protestant Reformation, the advent of modern experimental science… the protestant reformers played a crucial role in the process because they insisted that everybody should learn how to read in order to study the Scriptures and, consequently, not to be deceived by catholic priests (because the price of failing to learn how to read them was the everlasting hell damnation…) As a result, schools started to be established in every city beside the protestant churches.

An important consequence of this emphasis on education was that the requirement of helping children to learn became more complex and a gradual “labor division” (thus creating specialized functions) started to happen. Family, for some time, was in charge of the practical functions of preparing boys for external family businesses and the girls for household activities related to homemaking and, in due time, child caring. Moral and spiritual education was, to a great extent, shared by family and church. Aesthetic education (“sensibility education”) lost some of its importance. School took over an area which did not previously exist, but which was likely to become ever more important: the intellectual education.

With the emergence of many modern languages and their related literature, the discovery of new worlds, and the creation of many protestant denominations (which competed not only with catholic church, but also with other congregations), the beginning of modern science, which gradually evolved from astronomy and physics to chemistry and biology, as well as the later development of human sciences (history, geography, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, etc.), the intellectual scenario – the world of the ideas – grew in complexity and importance. All of a sudden, family seemed totally inadequate for the task of preparing children to the learning of such complex and varied matters. And, curiously enough, and to some degree paradoxically, this new world of ideas stirred up the interest in the old world of ideas of the Greeks and the Romans…

No one could expect that a single teacher, usually hired by more affluent families could master everything that children, especially those from wealthier families, were expected to learn… Richer families started to hire many specialized teachers. The emerging middle class (and the rich ones at a later date) had to resort to the congregation of teacher provided by schools… (the poor would usually be left out – until quite recently).

And that brings us to the present, conventional, school. This school is, from the beginning, and almost by definition, an environment of specialized learning: it attempts to deal simply with intellectual education and, even then, only within its market segment. Moral, spiritual and aesthetic education would normally be out of its scope. And the so called professional and vocational education has been assigned to specialized institutions and was never considered very important. The current conventional school (and society in general) wants their teachers to be several things at the same time…

Above all, it wants its teachers to specialize in content, that is to say, they want them to have a solid knowledge of one of the subjects (academic subjects) in which the curriculum (that which must be learnt at school) has been divided.

With the information boom which is the main feature of our times, expectations on the teaching areas have been continuously adjusted (i.e., limited). Today, teachers are not expected to be a specialist in all segments of biology, or physics, or even history: teachers must choose sub-fields to specialize in: The history of Brazil, for example, in the case of a history teacher… or even more (that is, less) than this: The history of the Republican period in Brazil (or even worse, History of Brazil after the Second World War…).

However, the expectations became more narrowed as they became more focused … In addition to having to choose specific fields within specific fields, teachers began to specialize in specific content which should be taught in the classes of which they were in charge. I teach mathematics to high school students” …I teach Portuguese to eighth graders” …

However, the level of specialization shows even more problematic consequences.

Each one of the different areas of specialization may be divided into two parts: one containing what one might call the “legacy content", produced by specialists in the past (even recent past), and another containing the “investigation and reasoning method which, when applied, may produce quite a similar content”…

This distinction is very important.

Let us consider philosophy, for example. Human beings are likely to have been busying themselves with philosophy for a long time. However, philosophy, as a form of systematic investigation on matters such as that which exists (ontology), where we came from and where we are going to (metaphysics), which is the correct course of action which we must take (ethics), which is the correct way to organize life in society (political philosophy), why we consider some things beautiful and attractive and others ugly and repulsive (aesthetics), and how we know all that which we suppose we know (logic and epistemology) – this form of investigation began with the Greeks during the five centuries that preceded the Christian Era. And it spread to all corners of the world quite rapidly. Over two thousand years later, we have an incredible amount of historical records of the thoughts of philosophers of the past as well as those of contemporary philosophers. This is the “legacy content” of this area of specialization. Helping a child to learn philosophy may, in this context, be interpreted in two different manners:

Help them assimilate the most important ideas (according to one criterion) of what other philosophers thought and wrote about:
Help them develop the competencies and skills required for thinking and writing in a similar manner (or, required so that they too also practice philosophy).

Most philosophy teachers decide to do only the first of these two things – and many times do not know how to use philosophy even for their own benefit. There is no doubt, however, that the second of these two things is the most important one to philosophy (the first, in fact, is not philosophy: it is history, even if it is the history of philosophy)... In fact, the written thoughts of other philosophers only become interesting when someone begins to master the art of philosophy... For those who have not mastered this, the philosophical thoughts of third parties is extremely boring.

The same may be said, on equal grounds, about on any other academic subject. Most teachers in conventional schools, today, do not help children to learn how to practice philosophy, how to think as a scientist, how to produce works of art. These teachers are only involved in conveying to their students that what philosophers, scientists and artists thought or did throughout history. Their business is to “convey content” – a horrible expression which, unfortunately, reflects pretty accurately what most teachers do: their field of specialization is, for them, just a heap of content -- content which consists of that which others thought or did, and which, now, needs to be transferred to students who, almost by definition, are not familiar with it.

As the content a field of specialization, today, grows very rapidly, teachers are incapable of keeping up-to-date even on that which is produced in their restricted fields, there being a tendency to specialize even more until they reach the point of knowing almost everything there is to know about virtually nothing. And that is what they convey to their students
.
For clarity purposes, this is what these teachers do not do – nor do the schools demand that they should do it.

Help their students to master the investigation methods of their specialized subjects;
Help their students understand the wider context in which the subjects were defined and operate;
Held their students understand that the most interesting points usually transcend the limits of traditional subjects and even those of the mega-fields such as, for example, philosophy, science or even art;
Help their students handle the competencies and practical skills required by the several intellectual professions;
Help their students deal, intelligently and honestly, with moral, spiritual and aesthetic matters which they will inevitably be confronted with.

It is then clear why a conventional school and the society which supports it demand, at the same time, too much and too little from their teachers.

Lumiar Institute tries to tackle this problem in several different ways.

Maybe the most creative and interesting of them has been to divide the teacher into two pedagogical roles: the tutor and the master.

The first professional is a full-time employee at the school. Each tutor is responsible for approximately 15 to 20 students. His responsibility is for the personal development of the student in all relevant aspects: physical, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and, of course, intellectual. The tutor must know well the children for whose development he/she is responsible. He must discover what the children already know when they start school, that is, their talents, inclinations, interests, hopes and expectations which they bring along to school (as much as one can discover about such matters in relation to small children). With the help of their parents, he/she must help the children to choose and contract the learning projects in which they will be involved. He/she must supervise the children while they are not involved in their learning project (because at this time they are under the supervision of the master). He/she must, periodically, evaluate their level of learning and their development (based on his/her observations and with the help of the reports prepared by their masters). And, unless any problems should arise, he/she must not be replaced by another tutor as the child grows older: He/she is a constant reference to them.

The master is, in a way, the content specialist to whom responsibility for the development of competencies and specific skills is – to use an almost abusive term – delegated. He is not a full-time employee at the school: he/she is hired to offer – plan, develop, implement, carry out – specific learning projects for the children – and to assess their performance in them (evaluating not only if they complete the planned activities, but also, if they developed, while performing these activities -- the expected competencies and skills.

There are three important features which are sought in these masters:

That they competently master a specific content – which is why they are called masters;
That they be capable of looking at the content they master from the point-of-view of the competencies and skills required to produce them, and not from the point-of-view of a mere content “conveyance” to the students -- and this is why Lumiar hesitates to call them, simply, teachers;
That they have a genuine interest in the field and a visible passion for what they will be doing, namely, to help the children in their development.

If these three features are present – command and focus on the investigation methods and motivation – the masters should not have any problem in getting the students to, voluntarily, participate in their projects: the students do not need to be seduced, even less compelled, to participate.

If their tutors offer consistency and continuity, the masters offer change and diversity.

The school management is responsible for ensuring that all essential fields of the Competency Matrix which form the curriculum are covered by the learning projects offered, directed and coordinated by its masters, who are responsible for ensuring that the students involved in their projects not only learn the content of their own projects, but also, that they develop the competencies and skills defined in the Competency Matrix. The tutors are responsible for ensuring that what the students learn in the various projects contribute to their coherent development as persons – not only as the individual beings that they actually are, but also considering their social role as citizens and to prepare them to be, in time, the professionals which the XXI Century expects them to be.

The conventional teacher was divided into two at Lumiar – and, in the case of the masters, the need to convey the “legacy content” previously found in their area of specialization was removed and replaced with investigation methods.