The theoretical foundations
for Invitational
Education (Purkey, 1992) include “the democratic ethos” (Dewey, 1916), the
perceptual
tradition (Combs, Richards, & Richards, 1988), and self-concept theory
(Rogers,
1969). These foundations rest upon core principles. As an effective educational theory, Invitational
Education (IE) utilizes assumptions requiring people, places, policies,
programs, processes to interdependently transcend from the present organizational
culture to the desired ideal. Thus, IE
theory rests upon:
- The 5 basic assumptions: optimism, trust, respect, care, intentionality;
- The 5 P’s: people, places, policies, programs, processes;
- The ladder: intentionally disinviting, unintentionally disinviting, unintentionally inviting, intentionally inviting, and;
- The 4 corner press: being personally inviting with oneself, being personally inviting with others, being professionally inviting with oneself, being professionally inviting with others (Welch & Smith, 2014).
Undeniably, a humanist approach to
education guides Invitational Education (IE). Richards and Combs (1993) advocated for the
implementation of positive aspects of humanist
approaches in education. These
aspects embraced the human being’s uniqueness, the importance of self-concept,
development of methodologies that encouraged group work, increased the
involvement of students in decision-making, and sought to create more pleasant
and inviting schools (pp. 266–67).
However, the dawn of the new
millennium brought new critics to the humanistic approach in education. Educational
psychologists: Duchesne and
McMaugh (2016), blame humanist approaches to education for promoting a structure
that led to weaker academic outcomes, unprepared teachers implementing
ineffective approaches, and ineffective measures of success. Such criticism was not new to IE. As recalled by Welch & Smith (2014), in
1986, McLaren complained that Purkey and Novak (1984) failed “to situate their
pedagogical concerns within a broader problematic, one that understands how
classrooms can be truly humanized only when there exists greater social justice
and economic equality in the larger society” (p. 91).
While Purkey and Novak (1996)
believed education to be “fundamentally an imagination of hope” (p. 1), as an
effective humanistic approach to education, IE must consider “engagement with
the broader social and political context” (Welch & Smith, 2014, p. 9). In this endeavor, IE continues to evolve beyond
simple re-branding. Now widely cited in research
as Invitational Theory and Practice (Shaw,
Siegel, & Schoenlein, 2013), IE’s humanistic approach still embraces its
theoretical foundation while seeking to extend moral responsibility and political
commitment to ensure the democratic ethos, the perceptual tradition, and
self-concept theory is utilized to provide fairness
in equity to promote the learning
for all mission.
As cited by Butler
(2005), Duetsch
(1975) provided three distinctive definitions of fairness based on equality,
equity, and need.
- Equality, by definition, is treating everyone the same. For example, after a certain age, everyone gets to vote.
- Equity suggests consequences: both rewards and punishment, are proportionate to product. For example, all children are taught to write but the gifted poet is celebrated.
- Need was defined by Duetsch based on provision or availability of accommodations and supports. For example, “accommodations and supports will not be provided to everyone (equality) or to only the best (equity), but to those that need them to be successful” (Butler, 2005, para 2).
Of course, practitioners of Invitational Theory and
Practice (ITP) will continue to embrace the theoretical foundation of IE (Purkey &
Novak, 2008). However, ITP practitioners
must also fully understand the issues of fairness in equity. Thereafter, ITP practitioners could more effectively
consider the social and political context in which ITP should be integrated with principles
of cognitive,
social, and behavioral learning theories.
To Cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (February 28, 2017) Invitational
theory and practice: In pursuit of fairness in
educational
equity. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References:
Butler,
C. J. (2005) Equal and fair are not the same: Classroom issues of fairness.
Retrieved
Combs,
A., Richards, A., & Richards, F. (1988). Perceptual psychology: A humanistic approach
to the study of
persons.
New York: Harper & Row.
Deutsch,
M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used
as
the basis of distributive justice? Journal
of Social Issues, 31, 137-149
Dewey,
J. (1916). Democracy and education: An
introduction to the philosophy of education.
New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Duchesne,
S., McMaugh, A. (2016). Educational
psychology for learning and teaching (5th ed.).
Melbourne:
Cengage Learning.
McLaren,
P. (1986). Interrogating the conceptual roots of invitational education: A
review of Purkey
and
Novak's inviting school success. Interchange,
17, 90-95.
Purkey,
W. (1992). An invitation to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 1(1), 5-15.
Purkey,
W., & Novak, J. (1984). Inviting
school success: A self-concept approach to teaching,
learning, and
democratic practice.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Richards,
A., & Combs, A. (1993). Education and the humanist challenge. In F. J.
Wertz (Ed.),
The humanist
movement: Recovering the person in psychology (pp. 256–73). Lake Worth,
FL:
Gardner Press.
Rogers,
C. (1969). Freedom to learn.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Shaw,
D., Siegel, B., & Schoenlein, A. (2013). The basic tenets of invitational
theory and
practice:
An invitational glossary. Journal of
Invitational Theory and Practice, 19, 30-42
Welch,
G. & Smith, K. (2014) From theory to praxis: Applying invitational
education beyond
schools.
Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 20, 5-10
