​Hope: Pedagogical Love, Humility and Commitment

Our kind and caring group members (SWG #9):
Angel Liko
Annalisa Luimes
Amal Nasrallah
Stephanie Campbell

What is pedagogical love? At the beginning of the semester, our group was assigned this topic and we, at first, struggled to understand the significance of it. We stared at the articles about humility, loving one’s students and being a parent in the classroom. While the idea of caring for our students was important to us, we did not fully grasp the implications behind the effects of love, its impact on students and the connotations behind being a loving teacher. We were skeptical about the articles, because they forced us to dissect what we thought we did naturally in the classroom. After all, we got into teaching not only to educate, but because we like young people and we want to support and help our students to become strong people. Why, then, did we have to learn about something we did naturally?
As we read through the articles, however, we came to realize that caring is not as easy as it might appear. For example, our essay will show that, while many teachers do genuinely care about the academic success of students, it is not as easy for teachers to be concerned about the emotional success of those in the classroom. “That’s not my job” is a theme that we will encounter in the research material. “I am not their parent” is something that many teachers feel, because let’s face it, when you have seventy exams to mark, caring about the emotional well-being of students can be exhausting.

In this research paper, we intend to study several factors about caring in education. We will begin with an overview of what pedagogical love is and how it plays a vital role in the classroom. The attitudes of teachers will be explored in relation to successful education and the overall achievement of students. Our research will then take us to some of the hard hitting questions. Why do teachers resist the idea of love in the classroom? Why is showing love so difficult? How can we show that we care to those who are the hardest to love?

We hope that this research essay will be more than just informative. We sincerely hope that it pushes our readers to reflect on their sentiments in regards to pedagogical love and how it is implemented in their classrooms.

What is pedagogical love?


Before we dive right in, we would suggest that you, the reader, first reflect on what love in the classroom means for you. While you do this, take a look at this humorous parody of love in the classroom. Is this pedagogical love?

blue.jpg blue.jpg blue.jpgblue.jpg

This first clip is a good reflection of a common outlook on “loving your students”. It is a topic that is not always taken seriously. Sometimes it generates laughter or even makes people uncomfortable. The initial part of our research essay aims at giving an overview of what pedagogical love really is and why it is vital for the success of students.

Let us begin with a quote, by Blaine E. Hatt (2005) :


“The original meaning of pedagogy is grounded in the relational and intentional responsibility of adult to child. The vulnerability of the child calls forth a loving attitude from the adult, as pedagogue, that is directed toward the physical security and the social, emotional, and educational well-being of the child as student”
(p. 671)
In Hatt’s article, Pedagogical love in the transactional curriculum (2005), the author explores the theory behind love in the classroom and why it is so critical for the overall well-being of students. Hatt (2005) asserts that it is essential for teachers to have pathic knowledge in order to teach effectively. This word, derived from the Greek pathy or pathia (meaning “affection, passion, or feeling for disease and suffering”) refers to awareness of “felt emotion and receptivity of mood” (Hatt, 2005, p. 672). Having pathic knowledge means that the teacher maintains “a shared sensibility of being in the world as One and the Other” (Hatt, 2005, p. 672). The teacher is aware of the needs of those around her or him, not only on an intellectual level, but in a way that is situational, relational, actional and temporal (Hatt, 2005, p. 672). This implies that the teacher is sensitive to the emotional needs of the students, their relationships with others, their home environment and any special learning needs they might have (Hatt, 2005, p. 673). Furthermore, the teacher must maintain pathic knowledge of her or himself, because pathic means that there is a constant dialogue between teacher and students that is grounded on achievement on all levels (emotional, relational and situational). This is what makes strong students. As Deborah Meier (2006) explains in her talk at the Forum in Chicago, it is essential for students to “keep company with their teachers in a community of adults that includes their families, their teachers and themselves” if we are going to raise strong citizens (online video source).

When pathic knowledge is achieved and incorporated into teaching, educators are then able to implement the transactional curriculum. Hatt (2005) explains that, while there are many different types of curricula in the classroom (reading, writing, communicating and caring), the transactional curriculum “is distinguished in its composition by its ability to include and integrate all curricula in the classroom” (p. 676). This implies that there should be a constant flow of “relationality” (knowledge of relationships), “mediated by the teacher through auspices of the heart in teaching” (Hatt, 2005, p. 676). Hatt explains that the transactional curriculum can be visualised as a Venn diagram, with five congruent ellipses that represent different parts of the curriculum. There are twenty five intersections, and the nexus is literally “the heart” of teaching; all parts of the curriculum should be motivated by caring and support. This will produce students who are adventurous, have a curiosity for knowledge and who are confident. (Hatt, 2005, p. 677).

The transactional curriculum, founded on pathic knowledge, is the basis of this research essay. Loving your students means that there is a constant flow of information from teacher to student and vice versa. There is a dialogue that is formed from the beginning of the relationship that allows the exchange of all that is academic, emotional, relational and situational. This creates a power dynamic between teacher and student that is both reciprocal and constant, an aspect that is necessary for effective and positive education.

Nel Noddings
Nel Noddings

What is Caring in Education and why are we making such a big deal out of it? According to Nel Noddings (2005a, p.3), (Jacks Professor Emeriti of Child Education at Stanford University); caring in education is essential for learning to take place. In her article “Caring in Education”, Noddings (2005a, p.3) makes many references to the amount of caring, or lack thereof, that goes on in our classrooms and in our schools.

Care-for and Care-about Noddings (2005a, p.1) makes direct reference to the differences in teachers who care and teachers who care-for their students. She points out the misconception that all teachers care. We all know teachers who we think shouldn’t be in the profession at all. Teaching isn’t easy and true caring is something that takes work, on the part of the teachers and the students.

Noddings, (2005a, p.2) however, believes that there is a majority of teachers who think caring is only a clinical term. This type of caring is only concerned with the academic progress of the students, not with the reciprocal relationship the cared-for relationship requires. This is also what the majority of students feel they are getting from their teachers and why the cry of ‘Nobody Cares!’ is heard from them so often. In a cared-for relationship, both parties, in this case teacher and students, have to work at maintaining and expanding on the caring relationship.

Nodding (2005a, p.2) stresses that in a true caring relationship, the cared-for (the student or the teacher), recognizes the caring and responds to the carer. In a school setting, once the guidelines of care have been established, then, and only then, Noddings (2005a, p.2) believes that true learning can occur and both parties will be accepting of the learning. She (Noddings, 2005a, p.2) also goes so far as to suggest that a student with a background in cared-for relationships will extend that to care-about relationships throughout their lives. First a person learns to be cared-for and then the caring moves outward; first to those close to us (teachers); and then ideally to include others we can’t care for directly (i.e. the poor of the world).

Interference vs. Cooperative
In her article entitled “The Ethics of Care and Education”, Noddings (2005b, p.3) creates a philosophical plan for caring. She compares this transfer of caring like energy; ethical energy that is transferred between two human beings. This transfer of energy (care), does not right all of the wrongs in our educational system, but Noddings (2005a, p.3) believes that this may improve the relationship between student and teacher to one not seen as interference but to one of cooperative work. Once the student believes there is a true relationship between themselves and their teacher, they will be more apt to open a dialogue. Then, through this dialogue, the teacher can gain important knowledge from their students, (interests, talents, needs); which will in turn make it easier for the teacher to tailor lesson plans for individual needs. It is a win-win situation for everyone. The students learn better and the teacher becomes more competent. (Noddings, 2005b)

It is unreasonable to expect that every student will act like an angel if the teacher treats him with care, but it is reasonable to expect that they will react like the devil if treated poorly. Teachers have to realize that how they treat their students may have a lasting effect on their moral well-being. Noddings (2005a, p.4) delves even further into this concept of moral well-being in her writings on moral education. She states that, “Caring relations provide the best foundations for moral education.” (Noddings, 2005a, p.4)

Moral education, according to Noddings (2005a, p.4) is much different than the fairly new concept of character education. Character education is an attempt to implement moral values on

students by direct teacher instruction; and the teacher is somehow supposed to evaluate if the ‘lesson’ was learned. Moral education is the extras that teachers give of themselves, the personal stories and the life lessons. This type of knowledge works best in a caring relationship; when the students feel enough trust for their teacher to open an honest dialogue.

Hard Line to Follow
Why is caring in education so hard? Is it because teachers are remiss to give up power? Is it because society has changed so radically that teachers don’t know how to teach care to the students? Yes. Yes to both of those reasons and to many, many more.Noddings (Smith, 2005, p.1) points out that caring should first begin in the home, and in today’s society, that is not always the case. The students of today face many more challenges than the two parent idyllic families of the 1950’s. She (Smith, 2005, p.1) also stresses the academia mania that is impressed upon the students makes them NOT want to care, especially about school. It is only the excellent that are rewarded, so why should the average make the extra effort? The answer is, they don’t; and they won’t if things do not change.

Moral Education
external image caring-teacher.jpg

Modeling: teachers have to demonstrate caring
in their relationships with not only students but
with colleagues as well.
Students learn from what they see.

external image 400_F_6633142_abgZ2hZjngnofb2xZdyFdod6mR9fF11g.jpgDialogue: the teacher has to practice open-ended
dialogue (truly talking AND listening) with students,
without judgment, reproach or interruption.

external image practice-makes-perfect.jpg Practice: the students have to be able to
practice caring, but not for marks
(as in community service hours)

external image YouCanDoIt.jpg
Confirmation: the act of affirming and
encouraging the best in others.

external image care%20bear.gifThe Challenge to Care in Schools external image Bedtime_bear_large.gif
In her article “The Challenge to Care in Schools”, (Smith, 2005, p. 4,5) proposes a six step plan to actually implement this change in schools. These steps are not original, and some of them are implemented in schools already. Noddings (Smith, 2005, p. 4,5) suggests that if we actually propose a plan to implement ALL of them, at the same time, then caring in education will truly happen. It’s the implementation that’s the problem, for some schools, this would be a radical change from what’s happening now, but change is desperately needed.

Nel Noddings Six Step Program Based on Care
The main goal of education should be to produce competent, caring, loving and lovable people. Many people feel this should be taught at home, but what if it isn’t being taught? Do we ignore it?
Noddings suggests we turn back time and keep the same students in the same classroom, with the same teacher, for more than one year. She believes this will facilitate an environment of care. Block scheduling was supposed to be a step in this direction but teachers are not using the time to implement lesons of care.
Teachers have to let the students have some control over the classroom and their own learning.
There is too much tracking in school (academic, applied, college prep, university prep). All students should be given the opportunity to study whatever subject they want. That is what will help make them more well rounded and caring adults.
Give at least part of the day to themes of care. Noddings believes we should go so far as to designate half of every school day to examine themes of care.
Teachers have to show the students that it is necessary to practice care each and every day and show them that they themselves are willing to work hard to enhance the learning of care.

“There is NOTHING mushy about caring. It is the strong, resilient backbone of human life.”


But what does this mean for us? The implications of actually putting love in the classroom into practice necessitate reflection. Hatt (2005) asserts that when you ask a teacher to display pathic knowledge, you are really asking that she or he act in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) (p. 672). But is it really our job as teachers to be a parent to every student? Hatt (2005) states that we, as teachers, should be people who are predisposed to loving children as they are and as they could be, from a philosophical and pedagogical point of view (p. 672). Therefore, loving students like a parent loves a child should be a natural sentiment that lies within all of us. However, Hatt (2005) does specify that not every child needs a parent in the classroom. Some students need less love than others and it is up to the teacher to maintain “relational knowledge… a familiarity with a child’s home environment and an understanding of the importance of an inclusive school environment” (Hatt, 2005, p. 673). Therefore, yes, we must act in loco parentis for some of our students
In terms of the students, the implications for practicing love in the classroom are vast. Hatt (2005) argues that pathic knowledge and highly interactive lessons should teach students to reflect on their learning while maintaining authentic relationships with others. This, in turn, means that the students will grow up to be people with strong relationship building abilities, and strong characters. Let us take this idea to the next level. If we educate a generation of people who are emotionally strong and who value equality, are we not promoting democratic principles in the classroom? Hatt (2005) states that to implement pedagogical love implies to organize your classroom based on democratic principles of co-operation, freedom of inquiry, and equality (Hatt, 2005, p. 685).

Deborah Meier (2006) expands on this idea, by asking the question: how can students learn habits from adults that are essential to a democratic life if teachers do not create authentic relationships with them? Meier (2006) links strong relationship building among students and teachers with the promotion of a democratic lifestyle. She asks: “What will happen if there is no time to have an interchange where teachers casually converse with students?” Why is it that, in our society, we believe that “the closer young people get to being grownups, the fewer grownups they should keep company with.” (online video source) In Meier’s (2006) words, this notion is absolutely “insane”. How can we maintain a democratic lifestyle if our students do not have positive role models at school? (online video source) The benefits of pedagogical love therefore go far beyond the classroom. In showing our students that we care for them, we create an environment where students feel respected, they understand the importance of equality and they learn the importance of the foundations of democracy.

The Importance of Being Humble

​* photo of William Hare:(Hare, 2008)

(Socrotes Quotes, 2006)


Being a Humble Teacher
· Approach the students with honesty
· Always take a stance that your own learning never ends
· Remember there are things you can learn from your students
· Respect your student’s interpretations
· Be aware that no matter how intrigued you are by a subject you teach, your students may never be
· View your students as potential equals
· Have a sense of your own limitations

(Hare, 1993).

What is the Significance of Studying Philosophies of Education?

P H I L O S O P H Y philosophy2.png

Something to think about... (Hare, 2008)

Bill Hare interview, September 2008. from Antony Hare on Vimeo.

Creating a Philosophy of Education

In writing a philosophy of Education we become reflective thinkers. We take time to ponder the way we want to teach, what we are going to teach, whom we are going to teach, and where we are going to teach. “It is important to be aware of your own philosophy because it influences the decisions you make” (Combs, 2007). Through the writing of your own philosophy you become aware of your own goals, values, and beliefs as a teacher. In addition, Gabrielle Montell encourages Educational Philosophy writers to adopt a tone of humility. “
Good teaching comes from years of trial and error, so a little humility is in order” (Montelle, 2003). It can be our tendency to glorify our success and accomplishments, when in reality we aren’t perfect, and we do make mistakes. It is how we learn from our mistakes that communicates our ability to think critically. Furthermore, our philosophy must reflect the care we have for our students, “Remember that teaching is about the students” (Montell, 2003). If you are a teacher only concerned with your own innovations, your philosophy will reflect that. As teachers create their philosophy of education it will always be changing with the new experiences they encounter. It is important to approach our philosophy with the virtues of care and humility. No matter how many years we have been teaching or how much experience we may have, caring for our students is at the heart of our philosophy

For more information on "How to Write a Philosophy of Education" visit Gabrielle Montell’s Career Trends and Features Article: http://www.edulink.org/portfolio/writeedphil.pdf

Allophilia: Moving Beyond Tolerance in the Classroom

- "School is a twelve-year jail sentence where bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned"
(John Taylor Gatto)

- "What lies beyond mere tolerance of the other?"
(Todd L. Pittinsky)


Ayers quoting Gatto says that “schools murder the souls and the minds of children by design” (1995, p. 215). It might seem like a harsh statement, however, schools are a part of society and their educational material is cross breed of socio-historical and cultural components. Indeed, this will affect their educational methodology and material. What Gatto attempts at clearing up, is that schools should not mimic the established socio-culture framework. And instead of just adopting a perspective to deconstruct social myths, schools should equally focus on promoting a new intellectual culture, a new paradigm, a new way of thinking. The focus would aim to reconstruct anew student attitudes and beliefs about the world and society. Ayers sums up the beliefs of the most distinguished teachers by saying that they believe it is “schools themselves that stand in the way of teaching and learning” because they resemble more a factory worried about producing quantity and not quality ( 1995, p. 216). However, teachers should in fact focus on teaching not just as work but teachers should see themselves as social actors with an intention aimed at both deconstructing social myths, and reconstructing intellectual ideas. Ayers writes that the art of teaching should be seen as “fundamentally ethical, political, and intellectual work, the task of people willing to plunge in alongside their students and search for ways to nourish a wide range of interests, needs, and aspirations”. (1995, p. 220) Meaning, that teachers should recognize “teaching as a creative act that, like all creative acts, is characterized by uncertainty, mystery, obstacle, and struggle”. (1995, p. 220)

So the question remains, if the problem in visible, what should be done about it? What methods should be adopted to nurture a new attitude both within the education system and within the student body? Pittinsky believes that in order to deconstruct social myths and to promote better understand especially in the cultural mosaic of the classroom, equal emphasis should be put on promoting intergroup relations and on tackling negative attitudes and perceptions that students carry from society to the classroom. Pittinsky believes that in order to accomplish such a monumental task, scholars should begin to create and adopt a language that can describe the new perspective of Allophilia. According to Pittinsky, Allophilia refers to the action of promoting and nurturing intergroup relations aimed at instilling values of love of others and not just tolerance. Pittinsky says that too much effort has been focused on “reducing the negative, not on promoting (or even recognizing) the positive” (2009, p. 212).
In attempting to introduce his new concept of allophilia, Pittinsky elaborates on this idea by introducing five important elements or components. These elements are affection, engagement, kinship, comfort, and enthusiasm. These might be what Ayers refers to as “radical alternatives”. Ayers says that “radical alternatives are desperately needed for the lives of our children today and for the hope of creating a better tomorrow”. (1995, p. 220)
The radical alternatives proposed by Pittinsky tackle sensitive issues aimed at fostering and building a classroom not only free from prejudice but filled with affection through the promotion of close friendships between classmates (i.e. pen/key pals programs). However, other alternatives and additions are beneficial and would fill the remaining voids and gaps. For example, through engagement, Pittinsky says that this component of allophilia would “seek out interactions with members of other groups particularly in order to learn about their experiences and points of view” through activities such as “jigsaw” and “Mix It Up”. (2009, p. 215) This aims specifically at breaking down barriers and also creating subtle means of communication that aim to foster an atmosphere of understanding and cross cultural mixing.
However engagement is not enough since brief student engagement might not provide students with a sense of belonging. This is why Pittinsky also promotes the idea of kinship and comfort. While kinship involves a “sense belonging with those of different groups”, (2009, p. 215) comfort aims at creating a feeling of comfort and ease with members of the student body. Lastly, Pittinsky promotes the idea of enthusiasm aimed at producing a “wow” factor. This factor represents the inspiration of students that they bring to the classroom through powerful activities such arts and culture.

However, the biggest challenge is not enumerating these allophilic components but to instil these factors within the student body because the “challenge is then to develop these positive feeling in students, even while continuing to battle against the negative ones”. (2009, p. 216)
This new framework should provide an alternative to the traditional one. Because students do not necessarily enhance their communication strategies and their engagement with others through tolerance but it is only in nurturing a cross cultural attitude aimed at being involved with others.

heart.jpg heart.jpgheart.jpgheart.jpgheart.jpgheart.jpgheart.jpg


In this part of our essay, we will focus on Western society’s preconceptions about love in the classroom and its role in a modern context. Throughout our group discussions, we came to the realization that, at some point in all of our lives, we had heard the words: “It’s not at teacher’s job to baby-sit. They are not the parents”. This common assertion seems to be logical. We often think, “It’s true; you’re paid to be a teacher, not a parent. You can only do so much”. But let us rewind for a moment. At what point did education and “being a parent” (meaning caring for the emotional, relational and situational well-being of the student) become separate? Why has love been banished to the private home? Can loving your students not help them with their academic education?
fish.jpg water.jpg
Our group thought back to our readings of David Foster Wallace (2005) and we reflected on his water analogy. In his 2005 Kenyon College Commencement Address, Wallace asks his listeners to constantly question the status quo. He tells a story of two young fish who pass and older fish. The older fish says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?”, to which they respond, “What the hell is water?” (Wallace, 2005, p. 1) The young fish had become completely oblivious to what was all around them. Wallace (2005) uses the analogy to remind his listeners that what appears to be a social “norm” is something that has been created and it is important to think about why they are there.
We would therefore like to rethink the severe divide that often exists between being an educator and being a parent. Let us look to the history of love in Western society for a better understanding of this split. In Jane Roland Martin’s (2004) article, The Love Gap in the Educational Text, Martin takes us through an overview of the etymological meaning of love since Antiquity. She explains that, in the ancient Greek language, love has several forms: sexual passion; parental, filial and conjugal affection; fraternal feeling; friendship; love of country; and love of wisdom (Martin, 2004, p. 21). Nowhere, however, is there any mention of the kind of love “whose object is the growth and development of children” (Martin, 2004, p. 21).

To continue in this vein, in a three-volume work on historical ideas of love, titled The Nature of Love (Singer, 1984-7), there is mention of “sexual love, courtly love, romantic love, married love, and religious love”. There are a few passing remarks to “mother love, father love, and family love”, but yet again, the love that is needed to support the growth of children is lacking (Martin, 2004, 21). In one last example, a 2002 essay by Richard White about teaching love (Thinking about love: Teaching the philosophy of love (and sex) ), fails to mention any kind of love between a teacher and children (Martin, 2004, p. 21). This separation between parental love and teacher love is an idea that has been entrenched in our societal value system for centuries. Thus, when someone argues that it is not a teacher’s job to love, they are not simply referring to curriculum expectations and job descriptions of the twenty first century. They are actually mirroring a social “norm” that has existed since the days of Plato and Socrates.
However, we would like to believe that things can change, and change they must! If we are to think that parental love and guidance have no place the classroom, what happens to students who do not have these support systems at home? With the increasing rate of divorce, broken homes and children who are put into Foster Care, where do these students find love and who do they turn to for guidance?

This is a topic that Max van Manen (1991) discusses in his book, The Tact of Teaching. Van Manen (1991) asserts that it is the primary responsibility of a parent to care for the well-being of a child. However, “we are living in an age when many children and young people experience very little parental support and influence in their lives” (van Manen, 1991, p. 5). It is the teacher’s responsibility to act in loco parentis “toward all children entrusted in their care”, because these children need a “protective sphere in which they can develop a self-responsible maturity” (van Manen, 1991, p. 5-6). This “protective sphere” that van Manen (1991) refers to is essential for children to succeed both at school and at home. It is the teacher’s responsibility to create a classroom environment where students feel safe, where they trust those around them and where they feel supported, because some of them are not getting this kind of love in the private home.
This is a situation that I faced during my first practicum this year. I was placed at “the rough school” in town and I got a first-hand view of how love impacts the classroom. Many of my students came from broken homes, had been abused or were being abused at home, some were refugees recently arrived in Canada and I had a couple Foster Care kids. It was a high school, so the students were old enough that they did not want to be babied, but they certainly did want to feel like the classroom was a safe place for them. My associate teacher (AT) explained to me on the first day that, regardless of how badly a student was acting, chances are that they had it much worse at home. We always needed to consider that before taking action against what most people would call “unruly conduct”.

My AT almost never asked anyone to leave the classroom. When some of the larger boys were rude or aggressive toward her, she just smiled and made a joke. One girl at the back of our core French class refused to do any work for the whole time I was there and ignored everything I said. However, one class she burst into tears and later admitted that her parents, who were divorced, were both alcoholics and often abused her verbally and sometimes physically. Another girl came to my AT to talk about how her parents were never home and how her boyfriend sometimes abused her. My AT always took the time to talk to all of these kids and she never made them feel that they were unwelcome in class, or that their behavior was “inappropriate”. The result was astounding. The classroom really did become a community where students felt free to speak their minds. The students learned to not only trust the teacher, but they found confidence in themselves, and began to trust each other. The first week I was there, a few of the students talked and participated, but four weeks later when I left, there had been so much progress. Almost everyone was participating, challenging each other’s views, making jokes and having a good time in class. This experience was something I will never forget. Loving your students really does create a “protective sphere” and gives them the confidence they need to see how talented they really are. When they feel respected and cared for, they care about their work and their own personal success. I fully believe that love in the classroom is essential not just for academic success, but for every kind of success.


Pedagogical love, caring in the classroom, humility, commitment and hope; these are all traits of what constitutes a ‘good’ teacher. These are not always easy to cling to, as many modern schools are tough and stressful places to work. Teachers today face many more challenges than our predecessors; and there will be days that we as teachers will not feel committed to our profession or to our students; but rather like we need to BE committed.
Our hope is that through this ERE, we have shown that caring in the classroom is not only an option, it is truly a necessity, and it is possible. Teachers have to remember that we are not just filling up these young minds with knowledge for the now. We are first and foremost preparing them for their future. A future that will hopefully find them as productive, caring and loving members of society; and we will have teachers to thank in part for that.

Reference List
Ayers, W. (1995). To become a teacher: Making a difference in children’s lives. New York: Teacher College Press.

Combs, J. (2007). Writing your own Educational Philosophy. Retrieved December 16, 2009. from: http://www .edulink.org/portfolio/ philosophies.htm

Gatto, J. T. (1992). Dumping us down: The hidden curriculum of compulsory schooling. Philadelphia: New Society Publications.

Hare, W. (2008). William Hare. Philosophy of Education. Retrieved December 9, 2009
from:http://www. williamhare.org.

Hare,W(1993). A Humility: Recognizing Limits.What Makes a Good Teacher:
Reflections on Some Characteristics Central to the Educational Enterprise. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from: http://www.williamhare.org/assets/hare_humilityasvirtue.pdf.

Hatt, Blaine E (2005). Pedagogical love in the transactional curriculum. Curriculum
Studies, 37 (6), 671-688.

Keller, J. (2005). Analysis of Nel Noddings, The Challenge to Care in Schools. Retrieved
from http://jotamac.typepad.com/files/analysis-of-nel-noddings-the-challenge-to-care-in-schools.pdf

Manen, Max van (1991). The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical
Thoughtfulness. New York: The State University of New York Press.

Martin, Jane Roland (2004). The Love Gap in the Educational Text. Teaching, Learning
and Loving (Daniel Liston and Jim Garrison, Eds.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Meier, Deborah (2006). Forum in Chicago. Retrieved from YouTube,
ontheearthproduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFzz2HAjH0&feature=player_embedded.

Montell, G. (2003). How to write a statement of Teaching Philosophy. Retrieved
December 16, 2009. from:http://www.edulink.org/portfolio/writeedphil.pdf.

Noddings, N. (2005). Caring in Education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education.
Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/noddings_caring_in_education.htm

Pittinsky, T. L. (2009). Allophilia: Moving Beyond Tolerance in the Classroom. Childhood Education, 85(4), 212-219.

Singer, Irving (1984-7). The Nature of Love. Vols 1-3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M.K. (2004). Nel Noddings, The Ethics of Care and Education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/noddings.htm

Socrates Quotes (2006). World of Quotes. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from:
http:http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Socrates/1/ index.html.

Wallace, David Foster (2005). Transcription of the 2005 Kenyon College Commencement
Address - May 21, 2005. http://www.marginalia.org/dfw_kenyon_commencement.html.

White, Richard (2002). Thinking about love: Teaching the philosophy of love (and sex).
Teaching Philosophy. 25, 111-122.