1. DEFINITIONS .

1-1. Deardon’s ‘three conditions’

2. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY

2-1. Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx

2-2. Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic (Weber-Tawney
thesis)

2-3. Marxist socialism.

3. EDUCATIONAL THEORY.

3-1. Various theories of learning and motivation.

3-2. Education and inequality/social class.

4. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES.

4-1. Social Exchange Theory (J.K.Chadwick-Jones).

4-2. Interdependence Theory (H.H.Kelley & J.W.Thibaut).

5. THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDINGS.

5-1. The ‘imago dei’ and human dignity and worth.

5-2. Biblical notions of social justice.

6. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM TEACHING.

6-1. Institution of cooperative vs. competitive
ventures

6-2. Communication and modeling.

6-2. Criterion vs. norm assessments.

by


Rowland Croucher

Dr. W.E.Sangster, when he wanted to research an
issue he’d only half thought-through, had the habit of announcing
himself as speaking on the subject at some future time. Competitiveness
and cooperation in education falls within that category for me.
I’ve never spoken or written on it before, but have always wanted
to crystallize my thinking about it. I’m indebted to the Dubbo
Christian School principal, Robb Sheerman, and staff, for providing
the opportunity to put together these half-baked ideas.

(Note: I feel with General William Booth when he
complained: ‘Why should the devil have all the best music?
Let’s borrow some of it for the glory of God! ‘ If a secular
humanist has a good idea or practice which is compatible with
my Christian convictions I’m going to use it. Some of the references
in this article fit into this category: let us use these resources
with both openness and discretion).

Rowland Croucher April 1990

# In American schools 85 per cent of instruction…
involves lectures, individualized seatwork, or competition where
students are isolated from one another, forbidden to interact,
and pitted against each other. [Johnson and Johnson, 1983, cited
in Owens, 1989, 105].

#*#*#*#*#

# In Tally’s Corner, Elliot Liebow described the
‘inside world’ of the streetcorner man in a black ghetto… The
typical lower-class black man tries to settle down and raise
a family, but fails. Both he and his wife know that his chances
for employment are scarce and unstable. Even if he gets a job,
it will not pay enough to support a family. But his wife hopes
and nags, measuring him against the ideal American husband and
father. At first he may strike out against her and the children
in anger; eventually he leaves, joining the shadowy, transient
street corner society of others who have failed similarly…

The street corner is a sanctuary ‘where failures
are ration- alized into phantom successes and weaknesses magically
transformed into strengths’… The man becomes a self- professed
exploiter of women, and invents schemes for acquiring great wealth
and power. Friendships on the street corner are intense but short-lived.
Meanwhile, his ex-wife may remarry or find lovers who can help
her, but these relationships, too, are short-lived. Responsibility
for the family is hers.

The street corner man wants to establish a family
and fulfil the responsibilities American culture prescribes for
husbands and fathers – for men – as much as any construction
worker or school teacher. But he cannot live up to these ideals.
‘His behavior… is his way of trying to achieve many of the
goals and values of the larger society, of failing to do this,
and of concealing his failures from others and from himself as
best he can.’ [Liebow, 1967, 222].

#*#*#*#

# ‘Secondary schools [in Victoria] have become
the most competitive institutions in Australia, compared with
which the celebrated rat race of industry and commerce is like
a picnic handicap for field mice.’ [Reed, R., (former senior
administrator of the Education Department of Victoria), quoted
by Owens, 1989, 105].

#*#*#*#

# ‘A large sample of Sydney students were found
to be more competitively inclined, more individualistically inclined,
and less cooperatively inclined than an equivalent sample of
their American counterparts. Even more significant, the findings
for Sydney teachers were the same.’ [Owens, 1985a, 229-42].

#*#*#*#

# One result of this pervasive competitiveness
in our schools is contained in a devastating report by the Victorian
State Board of Education. An astonishing 14,500 students a year
drop out between years seven and 10, most of these are below
the official leaving age of 15, and these kids don’t include
chronic truants, children of itinerant families, or young people
around the edges of society. Of these drop-outs, only one in
five when aged between 15 and 19 will get work, and the average
length of employment for these is 27 weeks. The employment chances
for the 15 and under age group are negligible. There is also
a strong link between leaving school and leaving home: there
are about 17,000 homeless people aged between 15 and 19 in Australia,
and the age of homeless youth is dropping. [Reported in The Age,
19.4.1990].

#*#*#*#

Definitions.

Cooperation is the act of working
together for mutual benefits. Competition, in its worst forms,
is the attempt through rivalry to achieve certain benefits which
others are also seeking, thereby denying them to those others.
Ideally, cooperation is concerned as much with the interests
of others as well as with one’s own; competition may pursue desired
goals at others’ expense.

Thus competition occurs where (a) two or more parties
seek the same reward; (b) the reward is in short supply; and
(c) the parties agree or are required to act under the same constraints,
ostensibly to ensure fair play. [Sadler, 1989, 6]

We live in a competitive world. Creatures (including
humans) rank themselves in pecking orders within species and
compete for survival against other species. Businesses compete
for customers. Managers or teachers compete for promotion. Even
pastors (though they might not admit it) sometimes compete for
parishioners.

‘The Book of Lists’ ranks everyone and everything
imaginable. The Guinness Book of Records offers lists of the
biggest, best, ‘winningest’ people and events. (The Greatest
Omnivore is a Frenchman, Monsieur Mangetout, who since 1966 has
reportedly eaten one supermarket trolley, six chandeliers, seven
TV sets, 10 bicycles, and a ‘low calorie Cessna light aircraft
which he ate in Caracas, Venezuela’).

However, not all societies are competitive. Aboriginal
children may slow down in a running race so as not to cross the
finishing line ahead of their friends. ‘In a small community
where people live their lives in close proximity to each other,
it is more important to prevent embarrassment than to win.’ [Harris,
1990, 7].

Australians are competitive people (in some enterprises).
Alan Border becomes a national hero when he comes from being
the underdog to beat the Poms, win the Ashes, and become Australian
of the Year – and is self-effacing about it all… [Turner,
1990]. A list of our leading competitors/ competitions might
include Rupert Murdoch, Andrew Peacock (but not John Howard or
John Hewson?), the America’s Cup, Lisa Curry, Robert de Castella,
Joan Sutherland, Sir McFarlane Burnet, Donald Bradman, Bob Hawke…
(Gallipoli?).

1. THEORY

Every human person is equal before God in worth
and dignity and value. But every human person does not have equal
intellectual, physical or social skills. How can these skills
be assessed, without a concomitant diminishing of personhood?

The ancient Greeks despised losers, much as our
society does. The Greek poet Pindar gives a poignant description
of the homecoming of young men who didn’t win at the Games:

To these lads was ordained at the Pythiad no delightful
homefaring, nor, as they came to their mothers, did laughter
break sweetly about them to stir delight. Down back ways, avoiding
mockers, they skulk, all stricken with their sad fortune. [Pythia
8:83-87, tr. Lattimore, 1947, 1976].

1-1. Theological framework. Christians are divided
about the ‘Christianness’ of competition. An article in On Being
states categorically: ‘It’s not important if you win. In fact,
if you desire to win, you’ve just sinned against God.’ [Hartland
T., 1988, 11]. On the other hand, champion rower Tom Treseder
writes ‘I long to see Australians set their sights higher, perform
greater feats, stretch themselves to their full potential. When
Jesus is King of our lives, and we are aiming for Him, who can
beat us?’ [Treseder, T., 1988, 10]. And two points of view in
the middle: ‘There is no doubt that this spirit of competition
has certain healthy effects on the individual… It also has
certain negative effects.’ [Admiraal, H., 1978, 6]. ‘To strive,
within the confines of known rules, to achieve a previously defined
goal ahead of someone or something else is the essence of competition.
Of its nature it is neither right nor wrong. And yet, the manner
in which competition takes place in a given context can produce
some most unhelpful consequences.’ [Johnston, B., 1987, 11].

There are several references to sporting competition
in the Bible (Ps. 19:5, 1 Cor. 9:24-27, Heb. 12:1). Paul’s state-
ments about athletics or boxing cannot be taken as an end- orsement
of competition, as such: he is using these analogies to exhort
to Christian discipline. His principle in such matters is in
1 Cor. 10:23: We are allowed to do anything… but not everything
is good or helpful. The context suggests that we should be thinking
of effects on others through our actions. Jesus reiterated the
‘Great Commandment’ several times: You shall love the Lord your
God, and love others as (presumably) you love yourself. He also
asserted that those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and
those who humble themselves will be exalted (Mt. 23:12). The
Pharisee is grateful that he’s a cut above others (Luke 18:10-14),
and the disciples were rebuked when they vied for places of honour
in the kingdom. Paul in Philippians 2:3 is more explicit: ‘There
must be no competition among you’ (Jerusalem Bible); ‘Don’t do
anything from selfish ambition’ (GNB). Paul is not only concerned
about behaviour in the church, but also (1:27) our witness as
consistent with the Gospel of Christ. Above all, our love for
one another should be marked by ‘kindness and compassion for
one another’ (Phil. 2:1). To the Galatians (6:3,4) Paul says,
‘If someone thinks he is somebody when really he is nobody, he
is only deceiving himself. Each one should judge his own conduct.
If it is good, then he can be proud of what he himself has done,
without having to compare it with what someone else has done.’

The Bible is replete with injunctions about doing
one’s best for the glory of God. To take just two: ‘Whatever
work you find to do, do it with all your might’ (Ecc. 9:10 JB).
‘Everything you do or say should be done in the name of the
Lord Jesus’ (Col. 3:17). Paul suggests that we can strive from
motives of selfish ambition. However he also uses the word in
a positive sense: our ambition is to please Christ (2 Cor. 5:9),
preach Christ (Rom. 15:20), and portray Christ (1 Thess. 4:11-12).
[Croucher, 1987, 1-3].

In the Christian community we are to remember that
we need each other. Indeed, says Paul (1 Cor. 12), the church
functions like a body: each part much recognize its own giftedness,
and its need of others’ gifts: all the members are equally valued.

James (Jesus’ brother ?), is particularly strong:
We must not treat some people with deference and not others.
‘God chose the poor people of this world to be rich in faith,
and to possess the kingdom…’ (James 2:1-5). What causes quarrels?
Strongly desiring something others want, says James (4:1-2).

# ‘The desire for power is the most common cause
of conflict in churches or any other Christian community.’ Agree?

Sadly, in our fallen world, when the prizes are
limited and there is not enough reward to go around, humans often
exhibit traits of ruthlessness, aggression, and selfishness when
seeking the same goals as others. [Harris, 1990, 8]. This, of
course, raises the issue of ‘prizes’ which are not in limited
supply – self-esteem, self-acceptance, a sense of achievement,
a valuing of one’s identity, etc. These ought not to be scarce
resources in themselves: their scarcity is a function of competitiveness
producing winners and losers in these areas. (Having spent 5000
hours counseling 3000 women, and 3000 counseling 2000 men, I
can say with some certainty that the majority of middle-class
Christian women, when asked, say they don’t like themselves very
much). John Kleinig [1982:165] writes ‘For such benefits [as
self-esteem, etc.] we can say say that competition is always
wrong, since it places unnecessary limitation on the distribution
of what, because it is an ingredient in their welfare, belongs
to people by right.’ [Cited by Deenick, 1985, 12]

However, like the money, power, sex or even the
motor car, the concept of ‘competition’ may not be inherently
evil, but may do a lot of evil when under the control of the
unscrupulous.

‘The most ardent advocates of competition are people
who have been successful… but for some people, winning is almost
never experienced… Those opposed to competition tend not to
be people who have failed, but people who have managed to succeed
within a competitive system, and who now occupy positions of
power and influence. They use their positions to articulate,
on behalf of those who did not succeed, the negative effects
of competition.’ [Sadler, 1989, 8].

This is why the concept of social justice impregnates
the whole biblical record. Social justice is about the right
use of power. The strong, says the Lord, are to help the weak,
not exploit them. Jesus’ judgment parable in Matthew 25 points
to the necessity of helping those who are deprived of anything
which diminishes their humanity. Justice is first in the hierarchy
of values espoused by the prophets (eg. Micah 6:8) and Jesus
(eg. Matt. 23:23). Justice and love are the two key kingdom values
for Jesus (Luke 11:42).

It is easy for the ‘haves’ to be proud, and pride,
says, C. S. Lewis is the great sin. Pride gets no pleasure out
of having something, only out of having more of it than the next
person.

Social philosophers (like Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy
Bentham, and Karl Marx), educationalists and theologians have
often been tantalized by the vision of a world where all humans
are valued for their own sake, and not because of some arbitrary
notion of worth based on one’s sex, race, age, abilities, achievements,
wealth, or power. But when these theories are incarnated in ‘Utopias’
they usually don’t work. No wonder history has been described
as ‘one damned thing after another’.

1-2. Education. Talcott Parsons (1959) advanced
the thesis that the school class as he saw it currently organized
will always differentiate the children in it by their achievement.
Even if this is not done by teachers or ‘the system’ children
are bound to stress comparative achievement, in every field.
But the last 15 years have seen an upsurge of interest in western
school systems in cooperative learning. The gains have been demonstrated
consistently across a range of outcomes. [Johnson, D., and
Johnson, R., 1983]. ‘Similarly it has been recognized that while
the simple proximity of handicapped and nonhandicapped students
does not ensure mutual acceptance and friendship, the use of
cooperative procedures creates significant improvements in intergroup
relations under conditions of mainstreaming. More generally,
in cooperative classrooms personal self-esteem is enhanced, and
general feelings of friendship are increased. Altruism benefits,
and the ability to see situations from another’s perspective
is more noticeable. Internal focus of control is more likely
among learners.’ [Owens, 1985, 104].

The ‘Value’ of Cooperation. Values may be understood
instrumentally (they are useful in accomplishing desired ends),
intrinsically (having worth in an ethical or philosophical sense),
or ‘educationally’ (they are learned as an outcome of educational
experiences) [Owens, 1989, 101].

Five ‘principles’ are offered in support of cooperative
learning: (1) Students work in small heterogeneous groups (to
mirror the real world and encourage the appreciation of differences);
(2) Students work in positive interdependence (each is concerned
for all other group members’ performance); (3) Students are
accountable both as individuals and as a group (individual student
effort is valued by others); (4) students learn through ample
opportunity to talk (dialogue being at the heart of learning);
(5) Students learn and practise cooperative skills as they study
and explore the subject matter together (reflecting on the group
process is important to maximize this). [Johnson and Johnson,
in Teaching and Learning Booklet].

Competition and cooperation are not to be viewed
as opposite poles of the same behavioural dimension. Moreover,
recent theory in social psychology postulates no particular relat-
ionship between cooperation and competition as aspects of personality
in school-age children. [Johnson and Ahlgren, 1976; Barnes and
Owens, 1987].

The ‘ruling classes’ view education as a means
of ‘getting ahead’, preparing students to ‘get to the top of
their chosen field’. Some who relish competition may even enjoy
exams, as ‘one more competition’. Working classes respond to
this philosophy with ‘deep hurt and a sense of injury, which
grows out of accepting, at least in part, the school’s argument
that the individual has failed. The protests of working-class
parents against the abstractness and uselessness of much of the
school’s knowledge are accompanied by embarrassment, even shame,
at being ‘uneducated’… [Connell et. al., 1982, 126]

The thesis of this paper is that all humans have
equal worth, inherent in their creation in the image of God.
But not all humans have equal abilities. In a fallen world, such
disparities of ability result in some persons feeling inferior
and alienated. Competition is inevitable in such a world: that
is a reality we must accept and prepare young people to face.
But where the setting can be controlled, competition is OK if
everyone wins in some way. It is not OK if some suffer an outcome
of serious discouragement and severe loss of self-esteem. Education/socialization
should therefore aim towards actualizing potentials within each
individual, and standards of assessment should, wherever possible,
focus on those criteria alone, not on norms of achievement for
the whole population.

1-3. Social and economic philosophy. All economic
systems address the issue of the use of scarce, precious resources.
Capitalist systems, for the most part, operate with privately-owned
capital for profit. Most free-market economists would agree
that competition is the only way to a healthy economy; and a
healthy economy is essential for most to have a reasonable standard
of living. Indeed, the conservative credo is that competition
is the nerve of industrial societies, ultimately benefiting everyone.
Parkin summarizes this functional economic theory:

‘…inequality of reward is a necessary feature
for any complex society, since it is a key mechanism for ensuring
that talent is utilized in the most effective way… Under conditions
of equalization there would be a danger that key positions in
a society would be filled by its less gifted members whilst the
most talented languished in equally well rewarded but less socially
significant positions.’ [in Entwistle, 1978, 4].

There is nothing inherently anti-Christian about
capitalism, but there is an unfortunate propensity to encourage
sectional interests, exploit workers, and when means of production
and distribution are concentrated in the hands of relatively
few people there can issue an abnormal concentration of power,
with a temptation to abuse it. The NT tends to regard excessive
economic power as an evil. Competition and incentives within
a system of free enterprise may provide built-in controls against
some evils, such as the production of inferior goods. Capitalism
may also demand diligence, and care for property. Socialism
may dull initiative and create contempt for public property,
for what belongs to everybody is nobody’s concern. Maybe the
modern ‘mixed economy’ or the Swedish model of a welfare society
attempts to integrate the best of both worlds. Marxist-Leninist
systems haven’t succeeded well in multiplying wealth, enhancing
human potentials (except in some Olympic sports), guaranteeing
human freedoms, or ensuring the withering away of the State.
So Ayn Rand’s idea of the ‘virtue of selfishness’ works, at
least in the economic sphere.

Sometimes competition is inevitable: only one person
can be hired for a job, get a promotion, or be the general manager.
Hopefully the person getting promotion does so because of his/her
ability in organizing cooperative efforts.

Whilst competitive interactions may involve agreed-upon
and social accepted goals (eg, in friendly games and contests),
they may often degenerate into social conflict. The loser/s have
beliefs about inferiority reinforced, or else negative intentions
or motives may be attributed to opponent/s. In a creative organization
there should be no room for extreme competition or extreme individualism.
[Johnson, 1978].

The Christian is not committed to any particular
social or economic system (‘communism is humans exploiting other
humans; with capitalism it’s the other way around’). Rather
we must be committed to the economic well-being of all, and to
fighting against injustice, involuntary poverty, exploitation,
and waste. In practical terms Christians will be concerned, for
example, about protection of buyers from exploitation by sellers
through the existence of sufficient free choice among rival sellers.
And using true and honest weights and measures (Deut. 25:15,
Prov. 11:1). If Christians were to decry all competitiveness
in economics, they would never buy or sell at auction, nor would
they give a ‘competitive’ quote for anything!

1-4. Social Psychology. Interest in the dysfunctional
aspects of competitiveness has led to intensive research in the
last 40 years in such areas as experimental games, bargaining
and negotiation, coalition formation, and related small groups
phenomena. [McNeel, 1985].

Social exchange theory attempts to understand competition
and cooperation by assuming an understanding of people’s social
behaviour from the way they exchange social reinforcements or
rewards. [Chadwick-Jones, 1976]. Social rewards include such
outcomes as praise from another, winning in a competitive situation,
achieving a goal with another. Depending on such variables as
prior experiences, personal preference, and situational pressures,
people choose what will be social rewarding to them. These choices
will have a central influence in determining whether or not the
interaction will be conflictual. [Cited in McNeel, 1985, 238].
If a child receives a Sunday School prize for learning 50 Bible
texts, she may have done it simply to learn as much Bible as
possible (a nonsocial, individualistic goal), rather than compete
with others. Sometimes social conflict may result from misreading
others’ motives. However, an act can sometimes be performed
from more than one motive.

It is sometimes assumed that competitive rewards
maximize learning and performance. This is a questionable assumption.
‘Much research shows that cooperative situations generally motivate
individual learning and group performance as well as (or better
than) competitive or individualistic situations.’ [McNeel, 1985,
239].

# Why do members of an Australian farming family
– or a Chinese family running a small business – work hard to
achieve common goals?

Interdependence theory draws additionally on social
comparison theory (people’s tendency to compare with others),
attribution theory (how people decide about the motives and intentions
of others), equity theory (the desire for fairness in the social
world) and theories of bargaining and negotiation. [Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978].

# Self theory. A child explodes in frustration
and anger: ‘I can’t do this problem. I’m a worthless, useless,
dumb nobody!’ How does the teacher respond? ‘So you feel….’
(the Rogerian approach)? Or, ‘No, because you can’t do something
doesn’t make you a nobody!’ (the Cognitive approach)? [Ridgway,
25-27].

‘The most important single factor affecting behaviour
is the self-concept. What people do every moment of their lives
is a product of how they see themselves and the situations they
are in – the self is the star of every performance, the central
figure in every act.’ [Combs, et. al., 1975. 39].

Generally, Western male notions of the self stress
autonomy and individuality. Female notions emphasize a more collective
view of the self as being in relationship. [Lykes, 1985, 356-383;
Millar, 1976].

Virginia Satir, a family therapist, says categorically
that low self-esteem is a feature of ALL troubled families.
[Satir, 1975].

Some educationists asked children ‘What can you
do if you get a low grade in spelling? Children with a positive
self-image suggested solutions like ‘work harder’, ‘ask my teacher/
mother to help me’, ‘practise’, ‘try to find out what I am doing
wrong’ etc. Children with low self-esteem, on the other hand
replied without exception ‘Nothing!’ ‘They had no hope and gave
up immediately, thereby adding further to their experience of
failure and inadequacy and their view of themselves as powerless
and impotent.’ [Kotzman, 7].

1-5 Recreational competition. ‘Sport is a purely
human invention to deal with an aspect of human nature that came
with the fall’ [Saunders, 1988, 14]. ‘It is through the challenge
of competition that people have climbed great mountains, pushed
back the barrier of science, developed new technology and rewritten
sports record books.’ [Treseder, quoted by Saunders, 1988, 15].

Recent decades have witnessed a diminishing of
‘sportsman- ship’ and an increase in ‘gamesmanship’ at top levels
of sport. People like John McEnroe have made it into something
of an art-form. Vince Lombardi’s famous statement ‘Winning isn’t
everything; it’s the only thing!’ is at least putting his mouth
where his culture is. Christians in team competitions are finding
it increasingly difficult not to compromise themselves. Michael
Novak claims that organized athletic competition actually promotes
harmful values: ‘Organized sports are one of the bastions of
the evil old order and must be stormed before the revolution
of values in this society can take place. The goal of the new
values is not success – accumulation of goods and all this entails
– but rather the development and cultivation of the person’s
growth in awareness and inner peace.’ [Quoted by Bordewyk, 1987,
12].

In individual athletic events, the situation is
less complex. Here one relies more on individual skill, without
placing the opponent at a disadvantage through, for example,
physical contact. Recently I watched Chariots of Fire again,
and felt good about Eric Liddell winning after refusing to compromise
his stand on Sunday observance.

A survey of Christian high schools in America found
that almost two-thirds of teachers, coaches, and principals ‘believe
that sports have Christian educational value. They see sports
providing the opportunity to learn cooperation, interdependence,
self-discipline, endurance, fairness, humility and gracious
acceptance of both success and failure.’ [cited by Bordewyk, 1987,
11]. If only it were that simple. One response hits the nail
on the head: ‘[Some] claim that participation in competitive
athletics helps prepare one to live the Christian life, to persevere
in adversity – or even to enhance the credibility of one’s witness.
The hollowness of these claims is directly belied, however, by
the principles of selection employed by Christian coaches as
well as those with no religious moorings. No coach I know, at
least, actually selects his players, when push comes to shove,
because of their deficient character, their need to develop Christian
backbone, or the ineffectiveness of their Christian witness.’
[Bordewyk, 1987, ibid.].

I would echo John Harris at this point: ‘I have
long admired Christian sportspeople like Brian Booth and Tom
Treseder. Their lives were a witness to young men, like I once
was, that Christians were not necessarily wimps. I give them
my thanks, gratefully and publicly. I would thank, too, all those
leaders of CSSM camps whose witness meant so much to me as a
boy. Wide games, like ‘coastguards and smugglers’ were the most
exciting games I ever played and it never seemed to matter who
won or lost. These, however, were friendly games. They were
supervised by leaders who made sure that no-one felt left out
or defeated. And afterwards, the same people who had run around
the hills and swum the rivers with us, sat beside us and told
us of the higher adventure, the more important race: the deadly
contest between the people of God and the forces of evil…

‘If, on the sporting field, Christians can place
the well-being of others above their own well-being, if they
can avoid jealousy, anger and selfishness, if they can display
patience, love, kindness and humility, if, in other words, they
can witness to the power of the gospel in their lives, then the
sporting field is a good place for them to be.’ [Harris, 1990,
6].

# Do Christians have to ‘barrack’ for a particular
team? Is this sort of ‘us versus them’ tribalism compatible with
the oneness of all humans as made in God’s image? What about
the notion of ‘school spirit’? Does this have to equate with
‘we’re better than the others…’? Is it possible to enjoy sports
purely for their athleticism?

# Does competition really teach people to be ‘good
losers’?

# How can individual and team games be modified
from a ‘winner takes all’ (‘zero sum game’) approach?

# How can school awards be arranged to value a
diversity of children’s aptitudes and abilities? (Eg. good spellers,
budding scientists, exceptional artists, talented musicians,
swift runners, kids who can sink ten free basketball throws in
a row, others who have faithfully acted as secretary to the school
choir… List some others).

2. PRACTICE.

2-1. Each school should be encouraged to frame
a written policy to which staff, parents, and, yes, students
have contributed. ‘Such a policy should be wide-ranging in its
coverage of details, and comprehensive in its useability: "Developmental,
preventative, and remedial aspects will all be included…"
[NSW.SWPS, p.9].’ [Owens, 1989, 100].

2-2. Selection of staff should have as a major
criterion the dimension of pastoral care giftedness. ‘Within
the Catholic system, a noteworthy additional suggestion [of a
policy statement] is as a guide for judging the suitability of
job applicants "in the light of the philosophy of this policy
statement".’ [Owens, 1989, 100].

2-3. Form a ‘student welfare committee’ comprising
representatives from the school executive, staff with pastoral
roles, students, parents, visiting and local experts etc. [NSW
Department of Education, 1986b].

2-4. Have a well-defined school-based pastoral
care program. In general terms this may be expressed through
* the development of quality relationships * the provision of
satisfying learning experiences * the establishment of an effective
care network. [CEO-CP:1].

Specifically, ‘quality relationships are developed
through such instances of cooperative engagement as "pastoral
(year) teams… pastoral care periods… class meetings… peer
support programs… student involvement in student-organized
activities… student councils… camps… and celebrating together
as a school". Satisfying learning experiences include cooperative
collaboration as found in "student-centred learning… enquiry
and experiential learning in small group situations… personal
development programs… living skills programs… and community-centred
programs." An effective care network, can be fostered by:

* one teacher to attend to the care of and relationships
with a specific group of students * a person designated to coordinate
pastoral care in the school * the establishment of liaison among
home-room teachers, year coordinators, executive, and community
referral agencies * regular parent contact * clear internal
referral network * regular student interviews.’ [Owens, 1989:102].

2-5. Teaching/learning personal development. The
NSW Department of Education’s ‘Student Welfare Policy Statement’
suggests the school provides opportunities for:

* development of understanding and skills in communication
and interpersonal relationships * enhancement of self-esteem
* understanding feelings and behaviour of self and others * positive
response to cultural differences * caring supportiveness of others
* development of personal values within a framework of community
values * developing decision-making skills * contributing positively
to the life of the school. [Paraphrased by Owens, 1989:103].

2-6. Teaching/learning cooperation. ‘As a learned
value, coopration is an outcome of the experience of pastoral
care by students, ie, they learn to think, feel, and behave in
ways consistent with positive interpersonal regard. In the NBSW
Department of Education’s Student Welfare Policy Statement, some
of the stated aims of student welfare are to help students develop:

* an ability fo communicate effectively * a coherent
set of values * a sense of personal and social responsibility
* a sense of personal dignity and worth * a sense of cultural
identity * a feeling of belonging to the wider community * a
caring attitude towards others * an ability to formn satisfying
and stable relationships.’ [As paraphrased in Owens, 1989:103].

2-7. Assessing performance is the crux of accountability.
The larger question involves society’s placing a higher score
on some values (eg. academic, business or athletic achievements)
and less on others (like perseverence). [Deenick, 1985, 10].
Here the Christian teacher will challenge some of the assumptions
of our culture, and reward effort, servanthood and creativity
as well as comparative success.

Assessment may be measured against an outside,
objective standard (eg. an athlete running against the clock).
Or performance may be measured against the person’s ‘previous
best’. Third, one’s performance may be measured against that
of others. [Sadler, 1989, 6].

Teachers can be encouraged to to make grades dependent
on (1) the performance of cooperative work groups in which individuals
must learn to work together to reach their common goals. Cooperative
situations can often be constructed more easily than people
expect, given their training in a competitive culture. [S.P.McNeel,
1985]; (2) individual creativity and performance in any area
of academic or behavioural achievement deemed important in the
school’s policy statement.

However, the transition from high school to tertiary
study necessitates some form of objective assessment. No one
has yet found a better system to determine who goes where. However,
we need more creativity in making these assessments wider than
merely academic or tests of cramming and fluency. I would like
to see grades for artistic achievement (as distinct from a theoretical
knowledge of the history of art, for example) given as much merit
as those for more academic subjects. Indeed, a creative system
of grading at the end of high school should not relate merely
to access to a university or CAE, but access to any vocation.

2-8. Two-way communication which enhances awareness
of the nature of interdependency, and which clarifies perceptions,
goals and values is more likely to yield cooperative solutions
than communication involving threats, persuasion or promises.

2-9. Practise and Model Conflict resolution through
non-violent means. This may be enhanced through the use of contingent
rewards, modeling, and third-party intervention. Role playing
and particularly role-reversal exercises are helpful, enabling
the person to ‘see’ the other’s viewpoint. The Victorian Government
has set up a Peace Education research Centre within the Ministry
of Education, to promote non-violent values and means for conflict
resolution within Victorian schools. The NSW Education Department
has published a resource booklet for teachers involved in the
personal development unit within NSW high schools. [NSW Department
of Education, Ideas for Teaching About non-Violent Relationships].
The Human Relationships Education program presently taught in
all Queensland State schools is an integrated course encouraging
non-violent values.

2-10. Corporal punishment. Although marginally
outside the scope of this paper, nevertheless it is an important
related subject. Let us simply note that the National Committee
on Violence recommends that corporal punishment in all schools,
public and private, should be prohibited by law, and that educational
authorities should develop constructive non-violent means of
social control to replace corporal punishment. [NCV, 1990, 146}.

2-11. Parenting Education. Schools have been encouraged
since the 1977 Royal Commission on Human Relationships to introduce
courses on parenting skills and responsibilities in schools.
The NCV recommends that ‘Programs should be introduced into
school curricula for instruction in human relationships, including
proper gender roles and parenting responsibilities and child
development. Education authorities should produce materials to
assist parents in developing non-violent means of discipline.’
[NCV, 1990, 147]. Other related issues raised by the NCV include
parent effectiveness support, integration with groups concerned
about child abuse, education in protective behaviours for children
exposed to violence etc. [NCV, 1990, 148-151].

2-12. Violence. According to The National Committee
on Violence, the average cost of * an Australian homicide is
$1 million; * injuries inflicted by others – $286 million p.a.;
* imprisonment of violent criminals – $200 million p.a.; * refuges
for victims of domestic violence – $28 million p.a. [NCV, 1990,
15].

Children spend over 1000 hours a year at school.
Often aggressive and anti-social behaviour is learned there.
There is a correlation between poor school performance and later
delinquency and violence. [NCV, 1990, 144]. School organizational
characteristics may influence outcomes in the levels of violence
[Kimbrough 1987; Greenwood 1987].

2-13. Children of High Intellectual Potential.
It is possible to concentrate in Special Education on kids with
an IQ of 69 or less (2%), or the 7% in the ‘borderline handicapped’
category, and forget that research both in Australia and overseas
shows that some of the kids who don’t fit into our school systems
are extremely bright: 15% – 20% of gifted children drop out of
school [Gross, 1990] Kids with an IQ of 130-plus (2% of the population),
or even 120-129 (7%), are likely to become bored, frustrated
and, through social rejection, lonely in the regular classroom.
So they can become disruptive, and will look for stimulation
in various activities – some of them anti-social or even criminal
– outside the classroom. Teachers are sometimes at their wits’
end to know how to handle these frustrated kids in class. Is
the answer special schools? No, I believe they ought to be encouraged
to help slower kids of their own age, and also do some work with
their intellectual peers of whatever age. Taking these kids
out of mainstream education now is both elitist, and may endanger
their incorporation into mainstream society when they leave school.

2-14. Use non-threatening self-disclosure and group
cooperative exercises: self-esteem/ self-portrait exercises,
getting to know you games, writing one’s own obituary, building
answers (where each person gives one word each in a sentence
in response to a question), trust walks, building objects, focussed
listening, etc. [Bretherton, n.d.; Letham, 1978].

2-15. Train children to produce more ‘win-win’
resolutions of conflict. [See Bretherton, D., et. al., n.d.,
and NTDE, n.d.].

2-16. Teach and Model Self-Assertion. Self-assertion
is expressing yourself appropriately with respect for the rights
of others. Aggressive behaviour infringes on the rights of others.
[Kotzman, 1984, 3]. Role-plays can include speaking out in
class, returning defective goods to a shop, etc.

2-17. Teach and Model Active Listening. Watch a
debate on TV – everyone is waiting to speak, make judgments etc.
Active listening is tuning in to agendas other than the objective
meanings of words – feeling agendas, for example. Kotzman (1989)
suggests ways of testing your habitual response style and give
feedback on your own listening skills.

2-18. Develop Support Networks, where older children
help younger, stronger academically help weaker, etc.

2-19. Encourage cooperative learning. When in the
60’s and 70’s open classroom learning was first introduced, often
chaos resulted. We need to encourage individual initiative, directed
learning, but also the profound sense of accomplishment when
children cooperate with others in a learning experience. Slavin
and his co-workers have developed various classroom approaches:
student teams and achievement divisions (groups of four or five
work on a set of problems, then individuals are tested according
to an individually-determined base score which is five points
below the student’s own past average); teams-games-tournaments
(students with similar achievement scores take cards, one reads
the problem anbd attempts to answer it, a second challenges this
answer, the third has the correct answer. Roles are changed,
and eventually the highest/lowest scorers move to other groups;
team-assisted individualization, used in math, where rewards
are given to teams after comparison with each team’s predetermined
team standard (teams do not compete against each other). Teachers
are free of test scoring and monitoring, and can tutor inbdividuals
or groups. [ [Slavin, 1983a, Cited in Gage, N. and Berlinger,
D., 450-2].

2-20. Teach non-competitive games. Rhea Zakich’s
‘Ungame’ encourages people to talk about their feelings, but
they can say as much or as little as they want, so long as they
don’t speak when it’s another’s turn. It has been used successfully
in many schools around the world, and even in prisons and alcohol
rehabilitation programs. [L.A. Times, 1983, 10].

2-21. Educate for Empowerment. Discipling model
of Jesus: first he did it, they watched, he explained, they
did it, then de-briefed, then did it alone.

2-22. Educate for Justice. Eg. the white invasion
of Australia. [Roberts, 1981]. Think globally and act locally.
Even though your action is part of the whole solution it does
count. Paulo Freire is perhaps this century’s most outstanding
teacher. In his Pedagogy of the Oppressed he attacks conven-
tional education for its ‘banking’ approach: the teacher knows
and the student learns; information is put by the teacher into
the head of the student — so the teacher talks and the student
listens; the teacher is the active, the student the passive part
of the process; the teacher has authority and the student must
submit. Freire is not suggesting that students ‘do their own
thing’, but that teachers and taught become transformed together
in the process of transforming the world. Words are used to
understand experience and reality. The result is ‘consc- ientization’
— a recognition of one’s dignity and worth and a movement towards
change in society to enhance others’ dignity and worth. [Freire,
1968].

Building on this approach, Henri Nouwen draws an
import- ant distinction between ‘violent’ and ‘redemptive’ models
of teaching. Teaching as a violent process is competitive (knowledge
is property to be defended rather than a gift to be shared);
unilateral (from ‘strong teacher’ to ‘weak stu- dent’); and
alienating (teachers belong to a different world to that of the
students). Redemptive teaching is evocative (drawing out others’
potentials); bilateral (teachers and students learn together,
and from each other); and actualiz- ing (envisaging the building
of a better world). [Nouwen, 1978].

Individualism. What Robert Bellah calls ‘ontological
individualism’ is the idea that (in the U.S.), the individual
is the only firm reality. The ‘social ecology’, says Bellah,
has been damaged and urgently needs repairing. Americans have
been too preoccupied with their own private interests – freedom,
wealth, and power – but have neglected the common good. ‘It would
be well for us to rejoin the human race, to accept our essential
poverty as a gift, and to share our material wealth with those
in need.’ [Bellah, 1985, 276, 284, 296].

Conclusion:
Does it Work? ‘How effective is cooperative
learning? Our answer comes from experiments in which children
taught by cooperative learning methods have been compared with
children taught by conventional methods. Comparisons have been
made on achievement, intergroup relationships (friendships among
black, white, Hispanic, and other students), and relationships
between academically handicapped (with learning disabilities
or mental retardation) students and their nonhandicapped classmates.
On all these bases, cooperative learning has fared well. About
two-thirds of several dozen experiments have found positive effects
that are statistically significant… [Gage and Berliner, 452].

Cooperation and competition need not be mutually
exclusive. ‘More generally, the traditional work ethic involving
firmness of discipline, respect for authority, and striving for
achievement need not be relinquished…’ The problem up until
now has been an imbalance towards competition… Our task is
to find a balance: cooperation is the path to human relationships
within sound and effective learning.’ [Owens, 1989, 107].

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Admiraal, H., 1978, ‘A Christian Looks at Competition’,
Christian Home and School, May/June 1978, p.6.

Barnes, J and Owens, L., 1987. Manual for the Learning
Preference Scales – Students, Teachers, Parents. Ms. submitted
for publication, University of Sydney, Faculty of Education,
Sydney.

Bellah, Robert, et. al., 1985. Habits of the Heart:
Individualism and Commitment in American Life, Berkeley/Los
Angeles: University of California Press.

Bordewyk, Gordon L. 1987. ‘Win, Lose or Draw,’
Christian Home & School, March 1987.

Bretherton, D., et. al., Dealing with Conflict:
A Course for Secondary Students, Melbourne C.A.E., n.d.

Bube, Richard H., 1987. ‘On the Pursuit of Excellence:
pitfalls in the effort to become no.1’, Perspectives on Science
and the Christian Faith: Journal of the A,merican Scientific
Affiliation, Vol 39, pp. 67-76.

Caldwell, Georgina G., 1985. ‘Competition and Cooperation
in Theological Education’, Taiwan Journal of Theology, No.7,
141-150.

Catholic Education Office, 1986. Circular to Principals,
81-027.

Chadwick-Jones, J.K., 1976. Social Exchange Theory:
Its Structure and influence in Social Psychology. N.Y.: Academic
Press.

Combs, A., Avila, D.L., & Purkey, W.W., 1975.
Helping Relationships – Basic Concepts for the Helping Professions,
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Connell, R.W., Ashenden, D.J., Kessler, S., and
Dowsett, G.W., 1982/1986. Making the Difference: Schools, Families
and Social Division, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.

Croucher, Rowland, 1987, ‘Ambition, Excellence
and Success’, Grid (Leadership letter of World Vision of Australia),
Winter, 1987, pp. 1-3.

Deenick, A. C., 1985. ‘Competition and Education:
Towards a Christian Perspective’, paper given to the West Australian
Christian Teachers’ Conference, 17 July, 1985.

Entwistle, Harold, 1978. Class, Culture and Education,
London: Methuen.

Freire, Paulo 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
New York: Seabury.

Gage, N. and Berlinger, D. (date unknown). Educational
Psychology (4th ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Greenwood, P., 1987. ‘Promising Approaches for
the Prevention or Rehabilitation of Chronic Juvenile Offenders"
in P. Greenwood, ed., Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile
Offenders, New York: Greenwood Press, 1987, pp. 207-234.

Gross, Miraca U.M., 1990. (CHIP Lecturer in Education,
University of Melbourne), in a Letter to the Bulletin, March
13, 1990, p.8.

Harris, John, 1990. ‘Competition: Selfish Rivalry
or the Pursuit of Excellence? A Difficult Question,’ Zadok Perspectives,
ACT: Zadok, No. 29, March 1990, pp. 3-8.

Hartland T., 1988. ‘If you play to win you play
to sin’, On Being, April 1988, p.11.

Hoffman, Shirl J., 1986. ‘The sanctification of
sport: can the mind of Christ co-exist with the killer instinct?’,
Christianity Today, 30, 6, Apr. 4, 1986, pp. 17-21.

Johnson, D.W., 1978/1987. Human Relations and Your
Career, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, especially chapter 3, ‘Cooperating
With Others’, pp. 65 ff.

Johnson, D. and Ahlgren, A., 1976. ‘Relationship
between attitudes about cooperation and competition and attitudes
towards schooling.’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, pp.
92-102.

Johnson, D, and Johnson R., 1983. ‘The Socialization
and Achievement Crises: Are Cooperative Learning Experiences
the Solution?’ In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology
Annual 4, Beverly Hills, CA: SAge Publications.

….., in Teaching and Learning Booklet, publisher
and date unknown.

Johnston, B., 1987, ‘Concerning Competition’, Nurture,
21 (2), April/May, 1987, p.11.

Kelley H.H. & Thibaut J.W., 1978. Interpersonal
Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley. Cited
in S.P. McNeel, 1985.

Kimbrough, J., 1987. ‘School-Based Strategies for
Delinquency Prevention’ in P. Greenwood, ed., Intervention Strategies
for Chronic Juvenile Offenders, New York: Greenwood Press, 1987,
pp. 193-206.

Kleinig, J. 1982. Philosophical Issues in Education.
Canberra: Croom Helm.

Kotzman, Anne, 1984. Self Assertion, Melbourne
College of Advanced Education.

….., 1989. Listen to Me, Listen to You, Harmondsworth:
Penguin.

L.A. Times, 1983. ‘Game a Lesson in Communication’,
Part VIII, Sunday April 24, 1983, p.10.

Lattimore, R. tr., 1947, 1967. The Odes of Pindar,
University of Chicago Press.

Letham, Vanessa, 1985. Educating for Peace, Justice
and Hope, Fremantle Education Centre.

Liebow, Elliot, 1967. Tally’s Corner: A Study of
Negro Streetcorner Men, Boston: Little, Brown.

Lykes, M., 1985. ‘Gender and individual vs. Collectivist
Bases for Notions about the Self’, Journal of Personality, 53,
1985, pp. 356-383.

McNeel, S. P., 1985. ‘Cooperation and Competition’,
in David G. Benner, Ed., Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology, Grand
Rapids Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985, p.238.

Millar, J., 1976. Toward a New Psychology of Women,
Boston: Beacon Press.

National Committee on Violence, 1990. Violence:
Directions for Australia, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

NSW Department of Education, 1984. Ideas for Teaching
About non-Violent Relationships, NSW Department of Education,
Sydney.

New South Wales Department of Education, 1986a.
Student welfare policy statement, Sydney.

….., 1986b. Student welfare: Developing school
policies and programs, Sydney.

Northern Territory Department of Education, n.d.,
Conflict, Case Studies and Causes: Social and Cultural Education
notes for Year 10, Casuarina: N.T. Secondary Correspondence School.

Nouwen, Henri J.M., 1978. Creative Ministry, New
York: Doubleday.

Owens, L. 1985, ‘The learning preferences of students
and teachers: an Australian American comparison. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 1.

….., 1989. ‘The Value of Cooperation is Basic
to Student Welfare and Pastoral Care,’ in Watson A.J., and Relich,
J., Education Towards 2000: Common Values in a Diverse Society?
Sydney: NSW Institute for Educational Research, p.100.

Parsons, Tallcott, 1959. ‘The School Class as a
Social System’, Harvard Education Review, Fall, 1959.

Prutzman P. et. al, 1978. The Friendly Classroom
for a Small Planet, New Jersey: Avery Publishing Group.

Ridgway, Ian, ‘To Compete or Not to Compete: Is
This the Question?’, periodical, publisher and date unknown.

Roberts, Jan, 1981/1985. Massacres to Mining, Melbourne:
Dove Communications.

Sadler, D. Royce, 1989. ‘Competition and the Christian
Ethic’, Zadok Perspectives, A.C.T. Zadok, No. 25, March 1989,
pp. 6-8.

Satir, Virginia, 1975. Self-Esteem, California:
Celestial Arts.

Saunders, Ross, 1988. ‘Is Competing Christian?’,
On Being, June 1988, pp. 14-15.

….., 1989. ‘Competitiveness, Achievement, and
the Christian Ideal’, Zadok Perspectives, A.C.T. Zadok, No.
25, March 1989, pp. 9-11.

Seiffert, Murray, 1985. ‘Competition and Cooperation
in the Classroom’, Journal of Christian Education (Aust) Papers,
84, 55-58.

Slavin, R. (1983a). Cooperative Learning. New York:
Longman.

Slavin, R. (1983b). ‘When does cooperative learning
increase student achievement?’ Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

Teaching and Learning Booklet, Education for Third
Year Students, comprising some thoughts about cooperative learning
based on material from Roger and David Johnson, Cooperative Learning
Centre, Minnesota (other publication details unknown).

Treseder, T., 1988, ‘If you don’t play to win,
you probably won’t’, On Being, April 1988, p.10.

Turner, Jennifer, 1990. ‘Competitiveness and Humility’,
Zadok Perspectives, ACT: Zadok, No. 29, March 1990, p.9