Change

One of the many themes in life is that generally, people to not like change. There are some people who embrace it, and even facilitate it. In history, the innovative thinkers have been the ones to spark major changes- people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. From a psychology stance, these are the people who reach stage six of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Most people operate on a stage two: self-interest orientation. Basically, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Stage sixes are the people who are interested in universal ethical principles; they are the self actualized members of society who act on the greater good of society as a whole. The reason I remember this theory is that I always strived to be a level six. There is also the stages in between, and people cal vary among the stages at any given time in life.

The main question I asked myself after reading Education and Change on our course materials reading list, I thought about why most people do not like change. Since most people are operating on a level two, I believe they are asking themselves, "Am I going to even get anything out of this? Is it going to be extra work for me?" I have found that people are typically more open to chnge when it is favorable for them. But I think there are actually twoe main reasons that people do not like change, no matter what stage of moral development they are at. People are afraid of being unhappy and of failure. Unhappiness can be brought on by failure, thus complicating the emotions associated with change. People need to be reassure that they can always go backl or make things better. I myself need these comforts. No one wants to not be good at something. I think that with education, there is also another emotonal component for "veteran" teachers. The teachers that have been teaching for 25 or 30 years may feel personally attacked at the suggestion of change. Perhaps they are intimidated by the new age of teaching. If they have a nice cushy tenure to blanket themselves with, there is little chance that there will be no opposition to a proposed change.

But I find the nice thing about teaching is that it is, for the most part, an individualistic career. You do work on grade level teams, and with several other professionals, but and collaboration still deligates respponsibility and accountability to the individual. We decide our own lesson plans, and how we are going to instruct. If there are some people opposed to a change, then the majority can still practice it with little interruption. You can always hope that the opposing few will see a successful outcome of a change down the road and eventually hop on board, which is okay too. Some people need to see how something could or would be before accepting it, and find out how different or invasive the change is. When changes are made on the administrative level, there is little room for choosing yes or no. But even then, there are still people who slip back to their old ways or outright refuse. I think this is the fear of failure coupled with the "I am not going to let other people tell me how to do my job" stance. The truth of the matter is, I believe that people who are stage sixes make the best leaders and the best educators. How can someone be in it for the kids if they are not concerned about them? If they do not think about how the world will affect the individual, then what good is it to try to prepare them for the world? One of the biggest changes in education today is the need for teachers to be able to think outside of themselves, and look at the bigger pictures. They need to be astute to a child's needs and the demands of society. They need to be able to lead by example. And, most importantly, they need to want to give others more than they give to themselves.