175,587 Wikipedia Articles Preserved

Teaching for Democratic Living through 3S Understanding
James Henderson created the idea of 3S understanding as an extension of John Dewey’s ideas of teaching democratic living as a means of transforming curriculum practices and encouraging reflection. The three facets of 3S understanding are Subject matter, Self, and Social learning. “In 2001, Henderson published Reflective Teaching: Professional Artistry Through Inquiry and transformed 3S learning into an intricate and valuable approach: teaching for democratic living through 3S understanding. He generated the idea of 3S understanding to illuminate and give voice to the three fundamental elements of student learning (Chehayl, 2007, p. 56). The idea of 3S understanding is based on the constructivist theory that all students can learn and deserve the opportunity to learn.
Subject Matter Learning
The method of teaching the subject matter involves a thinking-centered classroom with performance based activities (Henderson, 2001, p. 9). This type of learning environment engages students in the content and encourages inquiry. This type of constructivist learning and instruction and learning is not a stroke of good luck on behalf of the teacher; it requires well thought out, engaging and purposeful activities. According to Henderson (2001), these activities can be of the following nature:
• Discussion around thought-demanding questions.
• Peer-teaching, where students must think through a topic carefully in order to teach it to other students.
• Collaborative learning, where students share responsibilities for learning something and must organize themselves and topic to do it well.
• Problem-based learning, where students study content by seeking out the information needed to solve problems.
• Project-based learning, where students gain context knowledge though complex, often socially meaningful projects.
• Engagements in “understanding performances,” which ask students to think with what they know in order to demonstrate and build their understanding.
• Infusion of critical and creative thinking into subject matter instruction, where students analyze, critique, defend, ask what-if questions, and explore alternative points of view.
• Use of authentic problems that have real-world significance and a messy open-ended character (p. 9).
Thinking-center learning is evaluated based on performance based outcomes. In 1994, Spady identified six student learning performances which could be used for evaluation: discrete content skills, structured task performances, higher order competencies, complex unstructured task performances, complex role performances, and life-role functioning (Henderson, 2001, p. 10-11). Evaluating based on these performances allows the student to be assessed in a personal and social manner. This, again, is in an attempt to teach students democratic living in today’s society.
Self Learning
This aspect of 3S understanding helps foster students desire to be active lifelong learners. Self-learning involves engaging the students in the curriculum and having them “become” part of their learning. For all students to be active participants in this learning, the classroom must foster caring, and mutually respectful social relations which are especially important when students are young and vulnerable to falling victim of other people’s perception without developing their own (Henderson, 2001, p. 11). Additionally, the classroom environment must value the following principals: freedom to choose, open-ended exploration, freedom from judgment, honoring every student’s experience and belief in every student’s genius (Henderson, 2001, p. 13). Students are encouraged to activate their imagination when being with the curriculum and welcome new perspectives which may alter current beliefs. Students are also encouraged to utilize inquiry as a method of developing or modifying their perceptions. Self-learning emphasizes social-emotional growth.
Social Learning
Social learning is revolved around the idea of teaching for democratic living. Students who are engaged in social learning are respectful, active and informed members of society. Students are encouraged by teaching to think critically about equity, diversity, and civility issues in today’s society. The concepts associated with equity are asking the basic questions of fairness and justice commonly associated with differences in class, race, gender and sexual-orientation (Henderson, 2001, p. 13). Awareness involving equity and justice debunks common stereotypes and creates informed citizens. Henderson (2001) says, teaching diversity focuses on “awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of human differences - with sensitivity to democratic traditions and ideals” (p. 14). Additionally, teaching diversity is a subsidiary of equity and multiculturalism. Teaching for civility falls right out of teaching for equity and diversity; it teaches students to “appreciate the complexity of many social issues and many highly contested topics” (Henderson, 2001, p. 15). Additionally, students are encouraged not to have a simple-minded view and not to quickly dismiss opposing viewpoints. Students are encouraged to use inquiry and civil discourse in order to develop their own understanding and appreciative social view.
3S
“Henderson’ s work is unique in that it constructs teaching for subject matter understanding within the context of experiencing democratic living through this three-pronged approach to curriculum and instruction; it embeds subject matter learning with the continuous reflective consideration of self-learning and social learning” (Chehayl, 2007, p. 4). The challenge with 3S understanding arises when teachers plan to meet the needs of individual and varied students. The individual meaning making between subject matter, self and society is unique to each student. “3S understanding assumes that curriculum is not a one-sized-fits-all endeavor. Theoretically, we able to plan according to guiding principles, and practically speaking our day-to-day enactments are specific and unique and must be ‘right’ for a particular case” (Henderson & Gornik, 2007, p. 116).
Wiggins and McTighe created “Six Facets of Understanding” which can be used as a blueprint for comprehending 3S understanding as a relationship between good subject matter learning, self and social learning. The facets are as follows: explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge. It should be noted that as directly stated these six facets do not translate into learning democratic living or advocating for inquiry in learning (Henderson & Gornik, 2007, p. 115). The facets are present within a 3S model of teaching and learning.
Democratic living
The basic philosophy of teaching for democratic living was created by John Dewey who borrowed ideas from Plato and Rousseau. According to Dewey, “democracy stands in principle for free interchange, for social continuity, it must develop a theory of knowledge which see in knowledge the method by which one experience is made available in giving directions and meaning to another” (Dewey, 1916, p. 401). Dewey (1916) states that “a democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experiences (p. 101). There are three basic moral principles of democratic living. These three moral principles revolve on the ideals of intellect, generativity, and generosity. These principles can be aligned with 3S understanding. Intellect refers to subject matter; generativity refers to self as a lifelong learner; generosity refers to social interactions with diverse others (Henderson, 2001, p. 8).
The first, according to Henderson (2001), is that human affairs are best conducted through intelligence rather than through either habit or force (p. 5). This holds especially true when there are changes taking place in society. To educate students in this principle involves teaching students to think and engage in intelligent learning activities. Students are required to analyze, speculate, and theorize in order to obtain new knowledge.
The second moral principle is “humans must use their intellect for generative purposes. To be generative is to embrace the love of human growth” (Henderson, 2001, p. 6). Generativity can be used interchangeably and carry the same meaning as creativity. John Dewey believed that a generative learning experience enables “continuous development and fulfillment of self” (Henderson, 2001, p. 6).
The third moral principle is that “humans must use their intellect for generous purposes” (Henderson, 2001, p. 7). In this case, generosity is referring to be conscious to others’ beliefs and situations. Maxine Greene suggests that generous intellect involves people who function in a “way to ‘reject oppression or exploitation or segregation or neglect’ while engaging in authentic creative activities with others” (Henderson, 2001, p. 7).

What do teachers need to know?
Educators need to be armed with a variety of methods and techniques in order to successfully employ 3S understanding. There is no clear-cut, prescriptive approach for what 3S understanding should look like. Teachers need to alter their lesson design and planning, and classroom management in order to include engaging activities in a hospitable environment for students to grow. Teachers need to engage in a recurring cycle of instructional study, application, observation, and reflection. In other words, teachers must find new ways of instruction, apply it in the classroom, see if it works and reflect on the practice. John Dewey “argues that thoughtful practitioners consider both the underlying premises and the consequences of their instructional actions” (Henderson, 2001, p. 17). In order to do so, teachers should consider asking themselves the following questions:
• Is this new craft knowledge useful?
• Should I retain this knowledge or discard it?
• Do I need to further refine this new knowledge?
• If so, how should I proceed? What new applications should I make?
• On what basis am I making these decisions? What are the criteria for my craft decisions? (Henderson, 2001, p. 16).
Evolution into 3S understanding
There have been shifts in education and attempts to created authentic learning experiences for students which would change specific courses of study into experiences that foster democratic living (Henderson & Kesson, 2004, p. 92). Good teachers are emerging themselves in curriculum wisdom- a lens that provides insight into difficult problems and situations in the field of education. According to Henderson and Kesson (2004), curriculum wisdom involves a paradigmatic shift away from standardized test driven educational policy and embracing a certain quality of work as a way of being and knowing through curricular development, professional development, organizational development and community development (p. 92). Curriculum wisdom is an attempt to reach reform.
Curriculum wisdom is no longer linking educational quality to the results of standardized test but instead to instances of democratic living. Henderson and Kesson (2004) state, “the underlying premise of curriculum wisdom can be stated quite simply, Just because student test well on standardized measures does not mean they are becoming good human beings” (p. 93). Curriculum wisdom is not advocating for removing standardized testing completely, instead it argues that this should not be the main measure of evaluating and should focus on critical thinking skills. Curriculum wisdom is shifting instruction to a 3S understanding approach to offer a balance between traditional subject instruction, student-centered learning and involvement in society. By utilizing 3S understanding, Henderson and Kesson (2004) suggest that several vital questions regarding any curriculum can be answered including:
• How does the curriculum address subject-matter learning in a context of democratic self and social learning?
• If the curriculum lacks the proper 3S balance, why is this the case?
• Is there a “hidden” curriculum problem?
• Is the lack of a balanced 3S perspective in curriculum work due to an unconsciousness about the nature of the self and social learning embedded in a particular subject-matter instructions? (p. 93-94).
This information is provided by C. Morris- M.Ed Candidate at Monmouth University

The Iron Law of Institutions is a proposition in the field of political science. The proposition states that the people who hold power in institutions are guided principally by preserving power within the institution, rather than the success of the institution itself. As originally stated, there is some ambiguity as to whether the people who control the institution are prepared to ignore the success of the institution, or its power. However, in most cases it may be safely assumed that the two things being ignored amount to the same thing.
As originally stated
The expression is often attributed to Jonathan Schwarz at his blog, A Tiny Revolution. He phrases it thus:
:The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.
:This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.
The context in which Schwarz is speaking is his contention that the Democratic Party leadership is willfully indifferent to the huge potential numbers of disaffected voters who would most likely vote for it in droves if it embraced (in this case) the standing antiwar movement. Put another way, Schwarz, et al.., assume that adopting policies much closer to their own is so obviously a huge vote-getter, that no compelling explanation exists for the Democratic Party failing to do so except Iron Law of Institutions: the existing leadership fears losing power within the Democratic Party if it embraced the incoming hordes of enthusiastic new antiwar voters. Two questionable assumptions must be taken as given by this theory, however. First, that there were "hordes" of potential new voters to be gained by embracing the antiwar movement. Secondly, that doing so would not alienate another large set of voters. Both Presidential Campaign in the primaries and general election campaign demonstrated the limits of Schwarz' example. While both mobilized additional support, neither achieved electorial success.
Other examples cited by Schwarz include the late President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, whose decision to invade Iran, then Kuwait, resulted in catastrophes that he ought to have been capable of anticipating; a cabal by the Democratic Party leadership in 1972 to undermine the chances of George McGovern's election; and purging of the Red Army prior to 1941. In each of these cases, as understood by the writer, the leader obviously placed his own power within the organization above the survival or success of the organization itself.
A Google Books search for "iron law of institutions" yields hits going back to 1972, so Schwartz may have been referencing a law previously formulated elsewhere.
Origins of the phrase
The term is a play on Ferdinand Lassalle's expression, "Iron law of wages." Numerous "iron laws" exist, such as the "Iron law of oligarchy", and so on.
Criticism
The concept is problematic for several reasons: first, there is a difference between an institution's power continuing to exist over time, and that same institution's success in a particular mission. In the examples Mr. Schwarz cites (see above), this distinction is quite important: Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran certainly had a high probability of failure, but it is not at all clear that the would have regarded such a war as a defeat. (The possibility that Saddam believed a disastrous war would prolong his rule, or strengthen it, may well be the case, but needs some defense.) If Mr. Karp's allegations regarding the Democratic Party in the 1972 elections are true, there arises the question of what the institution's mission really was. "Success" may weaken the long-run power of the institution.
Another problem is that the "law" cannot be falsified, since there are many potential "institutions" and "meta-institutions" that may exist. Saddam Hussein, for example, was not merely leader of Iraq; he was leader of the Baath Party, and also leader of a faction within the Baath. If a conclusive exception is discovered, then the defender of the law can argue that the virtuous leader was defending a faction within the institution; or one can insist that the leader thought of herself as leader of the nation, rather than the party. The law can be applied so vaguely that calling it an "iron law" sounds like snark. This objection can be defeated by reformulating the law to clearly specify what institution any leader or group of leaders can be supposed to care about. However, this is not as easy as it sounds, since most powerful people can be understood to identify as leaders of many different organizations.
A final criticism is that the Iron Law of Institutions does not incorporate a logical role for probability. In situations where institutions take risks, it would be reasonable to demand a prediction of how managers would weigh risks and benefits. If a manager realizes that a risk will endanger the very existence of the institution, then it would be trivial to assume that the manager's own career within the institution would also be endangered. Moreover, the probability of the manager's own career debacle would be greater than the probability of the institution's collapse.

Fresku, officially named Roy michael Reymound, was born on the 26th of October 1986 in Eindhoven, a city in the south of the Netherlands. Fresku is a rapper, a comedian and an actor. In 2006 he started a rap-group, called Zwarte Schapen (Black Sheep), with his current manager. He got famous of short youtube films he shot, where he played as Gino Pietermaai and other gangsters, and of his very original style of rapping.
Origin
Fresku's nationality is Dutch, but his father is from Curacao, and lives in Holland since he is 14 years old. He lived in Curacao from his 7th until his 14th birthday, and before that he lived in the Netherlands aswell. When he returned from Curacao he found out that his birthplace, chanced since his youth. For example, he said, foreigners had a bigger role in telling jokes than the original Dutch people. At the time he returned to Eindhoven he already loved hip-hop, because he got in touch with it on Curacao. His favorite rappers were Xzibit, Dr.Dre, Eminem and Bone Thugs. His inspiration to become a rapper came from them, but his inspiration that he used to write his raps, came from a far older hip-hop style. When he returned to Eindhoven his favorite rappers where Masta Ace, Talib Kweli, KRS-1 and Rakim, who inspired him to rap. Soon he started to write his own rhymes, in a whole new style, that he introduced in small rap battles on the streets. He met his best friend Kareem on a concert of his, where Kareem told the crowd to show how good they could rap, and Fresku decided to go on the stage. Kareem (also known as Kareemineel (referring to crimineel, the dutch word for criminal)) was sold at once and until this day they never left each other. Kareem and Fresku both have the same message to tell the world, but have a total different style of telling it. They both want to see more Dutch-Marocans and Dutch-Antillians being together positively, instead of downgrading themselves. They also want the people not to believe everything the press tells them, but also think about their own experience. The name Fresku comes from Papiaments, the original language of the Dutch Antilles, and means rude, what explains Fresku's rap style perfectly.
Career
In 2008 he made his first track, called Brief aan Kees, what means letter to Kees, which was an indirect applying letter to Kees de Koning, the boss of TopNotch, a music publishing company. Half a year later, in 2009, the rapper Sticks had shown the track to De Koning and De Koning offered Fresku a contract, which he signed joyfully. In 2009 he got the State Award 2009, for best single, for his first single, Twijfel (doubt). For this single he also got the Lijn5 Award and "The Rookie of the year" award. He made his second single in the same year with the singer Neenah, called Ik ben hier (I'm here). Instead of hating MC's who hated him, he learned from them and got inspired by them. It was just a matter of time before he became more famous and a better rapper than all of them. In 2010 he launched his first album, which was named Fresku, and got nominated for best artist by the State Award 2010. He won the award for the best clip, with the song Kutkop, and the award for the best album, with the song Fresku. In 2010 he also played in the Dutch movie New Kids Turbo as a garbage man. In 2011 he shot the movie Alleen (alone).
Many people say we spread even more hatred, that pointing your fingers doesn't add anything to the integration, and that it just brings a gap between the majority and the minority. But WE say: The gap is there already. It just needs to be recognized to be closed. To tell about a problem is something totally different than pointing fingers. We want an united country. Who points fingers can't form a fist.- Fresku & Zwarte Schapen
References
http://www.myspace.com/zwarteschapen
http://3voor12.vpro.nl/artikelen/artikel/43400158
http://www.top-notch.nl/page/artiest-biografie/Fresku/