AN ADDENDUM: PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION

 

The last posting ended with a reference to the academic rationalist-based approach to curriculum attributed to Mortimer Adler.  His suggested curricular outline, called the Paideia curriculum, presents a more “progressive” approach to academic rationalism.  Historically, this approach limited its prescriptions for teachers to review the great works from the past.  The Greek philosophers’ contributions seemed to be central to the materials employed by this approach.  With Adler, that approach became more interactive in its instructional recommendations.

For context, academic rationalism is one of four major philosophic schools of thought in curriculum literature.  Readers would benefit to have a grounded understanding of these four schools when considering the suggestions of such a writer as Adler.  The four schools are perennialism (often called academic rationalism), essentialism, progressivism, and social reconstructionism / critical theory (often just called reconstructionism[1] or critical theory). 

As indicated and further commented on below, Adler falls within the perennials’ frame of mind.  But what does that mean both in its own terms and in terms of the other approaches?  This posting and the next offer a summary review to answer those questions.  This review will rely on Augsberg’s chart of educational philosophies[2] and as usually listed, the four schools are described as being a progression from the most conservative to the most liberal. 

That listing starts with the academic rationalist or perennialism (most conservative) to the most liberal one, critical theory.  In between, in order, are essentialism and progressivism.  The question that these philosophies set out to answer is how people learn best and/or how people come to know something. 

The focus, therefore, settles on what and how students should be taught and as such, educators, individually, should give these philosophies serious thought, choose what best fits their biases (hopefully reflected biases), and continuously evaluate what they do and what they want to do in the classroom in relation to how they fall in this schema.  Each school has ample followers not just in the US but around the world. 

To begin, one first encounters perennialism. 

Perennialism.  The main aim of this philosophy is to have students develop their understanding of the great ideas of their civilization.  That would be the Western civilization in the US.  The assumption – and advocates would claim the evidence demonstrates – is that those ideas can potentially solve the problems of any people, at any time.  The term perennial is used because the belief is that those ideas are everlasting and reflect enduring truths.  They are constant and unchangeable.  This again reflects the natural and human conditions at their most basic and essential level.  In true conservative belief, these realities do not change.

As such, these beliefs or, better stated, principles include that people are rational and as such, their minds need to be educated or developed.  “Thus, cultivation of the intellect is the highest priority in a worthwhile education.”[3]  The focus of such teaching should include what is commonly called cultural literacy and it should stress that students be led toward an enduring discipline, especially in how people approach learning.

The content should center on what commonly is held as the preeminent contribution one finds in the Western tradition.  That includes the great works of art and literature and the contributions – laws and principles – of science.  And the major proponents of this view have been Robert Maynard Hutchins – developer of the Great Books series in 1963 – and Mortimer Adler – further developer of that Great Books program. 

Adler also helped give the series – a hundred books of the western tradition – wide visibility with his TV presentations mostly on the Public Broadcasting Service.  That program was noted for being an informal format in which Adler would conduct conversational – freewheeling – one-hour presentations as he and his guests discussed “Six Great Ideas.”  It ran in 1982.[4]

Essentialism.  As its title suggests, the main goal of education, according to this approach, is to have students learn the common core of information and beliefs they are expected to know.  And that the way to do such teaching and learning is through a systematic process that promotes a disciplined approach of that presentation.  This school’s focus is in transmitting the intellectual and moral standards that schools should teach.  Central to the concern is that there should be academic rigor in imparting this essential knowledge and these skills.

          Let this blogger add that he judges that essentialism is the prevailing philosophy in American schools.  It was surely what he experienced as a young student in his K-12 experience, although his high school experience probably reflected to a limited degree a more progressive influence.  And if one applies what this short description states to what was shared in the last posting, the reader can readily interpret how this blogger feels about this philosophy. 

But let him add that essentialist teachers can be effective if they insist on a level of reflection from students and not just recall.  The problem is that this last element is not part of essentialist philosophy and has to be incorporated by teachers who take note of evidence indicating that un-reflected mental imaging and listings are highly apt to be either forgotten or lack in applicability to various relevant situations or other knowledge.

            As a more conservative view, it has some similarities with perennialism, but it is more open to modifications and change.  The school emphasizes practicality and does share a concern about how students are being prepared to be productive members of society – and hence, open to reflection mentioned above. 

But as hinted at to this point, the material is fact based and reliant on objective reality (as opposed to normative content).  The philosophy is usually cited to support “back-to-basic” reforms.  Usually, the “3-Rs” become central, i.e., improving students’ ability to compute and communicate logically and clearly.

          As institutions, schools, according to this approach, are not called upon to set policy or even influence their development.  “Students should be taught hard work, respect for authority, and discipline.  Teachers are to help students keep their non-productive instincts in check, such as aggression or mindlessness.”[5]

            Historically, this school has not always been around.  This might surprise some people who might restrict their views on education to the practical.  Actually, it got started as a reaction to progressivism – the next philosophy in this progression – in the 1920s and ’30s.  But one can add that it also aligns with the heydays of industrialization in the US.  This blogger can’t help thinking that this approach to education set up nicely to encourage a disciplined workforce.

          Leading figures in this school have been James D. Koerner (1959), Hyman G. Rickover (1959), Paul Copperman (1978), and Theodore Sizer (1985).  While Sizer passed away in 2009, his ideas still have currency today.  And as already indicated, this school of thought holds a prominent place in American education today and for the foreseeable future.  As a matter of fact, given the recent concerns over critical race theory, sexual orientation issues, and nationalist biases, it is apparently getting a fusion of energy in the current American discourse.

          Progressivism and critical theory will be the topics of the next posting and then the blog will re-hook up with Adler’s contribution and with this review’s contextualizing information concerning the philosophies under consideration.  As an aside, American politics could improve if people more often were informed of the various assumed philosophic positions from which various arguments are derived.

---

[1] Further development of this approach – beyond mere economic factors – led in the late twentieth century to what has been called reconceptualizing which further developed the later ideas of John Dewey.  Those ideas led to conceptualizing areas of concern including race and sexual orientation and how those concerns affect equality statuses.

[2] “Educational Philosophical Definitions and Comparison Chart,” Augsburg (n.d.), accessed June 15, 2022, https://web.augsburg.edu/~erickson/edc490/downloads/comparison_edu_philo.pdf .

[3] Ibid.

[4] Arthur Unger, “Mortimer Adler Brings some ‘Great Ideas’ to Public TV,” The Christian Science Monitor (November 12, 1982), accessed June 16, 2022, https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/1112/111200.html#:~:text=Adler%20is%20conducting%20a%20freewheeling,talking%20but%20thinking%20as%20well.

[5] “Educational Philosophical Definitions and Comparison Chart,” Augsburg.

JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXII

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

Expectations of Schools (cont.)

          The last posting introduced the last of Shubert’s commonplaces, the milieu, and focused on the “expectations of schools” as the first factor by which to tease out this commonplace.  And initially, one outstanding realm of this factor is the shared disappointment the American public has had over how well their schools have met, in their eyes, a basic function – to prepare their kids to take their places within the economic system, mostly through employment.

          The perceived inability of schools has been the center of much concern, although somewhat softened currently because of the pandemic and the recent experience many have had with home instruction.  Yet, even with that, the level of dissatisfaction is still palpable.  This blogger can personally report and agree with Christopher Hurn[2] that this concern has led to many different reform movements within the education community. 

Hurn could point out, as far back as 1993, that “[s]chools were asked to individualize instruction, introduce new relevant curricula, provide more options and electives for students and become more sensitive to the special needs of minority and disadvantaged students.”[3]  While some studies demonstrate some improvements in school performance,[4] more common reports reflect the findings of the Pew Research Center.

Pew found, at best, US educational achievements lodged somewhere in the middle of all global educational systems.  That report shared findings in student performance in mostly STEM subjects.  According to 2015 testing, US students ranked 24^th in science, 39^th in mathematics, and 24^th in reading.[5]  Given the implementation of those “reform” efforts, one cannot detect great changes – other than the effects of the pandemic – in the nation’s schools over the past decade or so.

As a virulent issue, deficiencies in those schools have lost a lot of steam as of late.  It has been overwhelmed by inflation, political extremism, crime, immigration, climate change, racism, foreign conflicts, COVID, mass shootings, etc.  But it is not totally off the concern screen.[6]  And all along, this concern has had a very practical bent – what are the preparations and consequently the opportunities one’s kids will have in the job market of tomorrow?

Among those professionals who look after these developments, there has long been the concern that American educational efforts have overly relied on recall-based curricula.  Instead, the expectation of career/job preparedness seems to place on school instruction the impartation of learning and problem-solving skills.  Of primary concern is how to motivate students to engage in their lessons more meaningfully and interactively. 

Grading, from way back, has been the prominent form of reward and punishment for students behaving in desired ways, and tests seem to be overly based on recall questions.  Generally, this leads to lessons having students as passive observers and listeners to teacher monologues in which what is expected is uttering “right answers.” 

That is, the aim is perceived as reproducing what is known instead of utilizing what is known or strongly believed.  Most classroom processes are geared to getting students to reiterate what they have been told – what can be described as a form of conforming behaviors.  And there is ample evidence that the whole effort is mostly a waste of time.[7]  That is, the rate of recall after even short periods of time is significantly low.

In short, these factors suggest change and, ironically and according to parochial/traditional federalist view, that change should look to tradition or what academics call academic rationalism.  This is an approach to education that advocates a type of curriculum suggested by this dialectic view, parochial federalism.  Those advocates pick up on the prevailing complaints and offer a set of pedagogic solutions. 

Recently, Jessica Richardi[8] has stirred up new interest in a reform movement from the 1980s that touts academic rationalist ideas, that of Mortimer Adler and his Paideia curriculum.  For example, one aspect of Adler’s views was his concern about equality.  She, Richardi, emphasizing that curriculum’s concern for equality, concludes,

 

It is a fact that racial and class inequalities permeate the American education system, and well established that curricular tracking and ability grouping can and do perpetuate those inequalities. In and of itself, the Paideia Program’s democratic stance against tracking warrants a collective look in its direction. What’s more, Paideia represents a step toward fulfillment of the promise of democracy articulated by [John] Dewey and reiterated by Adler: A true democracy demands excellence and equality of education for all children. Regardless of background or perceived ability, students deserve to be held to the same rigorous standards, to achieve at the highest level of their capacity, and to reap the benefits of a quality K–12 education for the remainder of their lives.[9]

 

Beyond this concern for equality, what did Adler advocate? 

He, for example, expressed that students generally have not been challenged sufficiently in the typical American classroom.  He further contended that children will naturally meet higher expectations if those expectations are reasonable and attractive.  In addition, students will meet the challenges if instruction captures their interest.[10]   And that happens when their minds are engaged by teachers able to provide different types of instruction than what prevails today.

During his time, the common complaint was that American classrooms were lacking in intellectual stimulation which led to a general setting of boredom and general incivility.  As for the boredom claim, one finds things have not changed.  Here, Harvard’s journal, Ed., reports,

 

A 2013 Gallup poll of 500,000 students in grades five through 12 found that nearly eight in 10 elementary students were “engaged” with school, that is, attentive, inquisitive, and generally optimistic. By high school, the number dropped to four in 10. A 2015 follow-up study found that less than a third of 11th-graders felt engaged. When Gallup asked teens in 2004 to select the top three words that describe how they feel in school from a list of 14 adjectives, “bored” was chosen most often by half the students. “Tired” was second, at 42 percent. Only 2 percent said they were never bored. The evidence suggests that, on a daily basis, the vast majority of teenagers seriously contemplate banging their heads against their desks.[11]

 

And with that “uplifting” note, this posting will end with this view of Adler’s contribution.  The blog has a bit more to share of that contribution in the next posting.

---

[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).  The reader is reminded that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.

[2] Christopher J. Hurn, The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling:  An Introduction to the Sociology of Education (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, 1993).

[3] Ibid., 1, emphasis in the original.

[4] “International Comparisons of Achievements,” IES/National Center for Education Statistics (n.d., but reports on stats from 2016), accessed June 12, 2022, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1#:~:text=centerpoint%20(500).-,The%20U.S.%20average%20score%20was%20higher%20than%20the%20average%20scores,higher%20than%20the%20United%20States.

[5] Drew DeSilver, “U.S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags that of Their Peers in Many Other Countries,” Pew Research Center (February 15, 2017), accessed June 12, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ .

[6] Geoffrey Skelley and Holly Fung, “We Asked 2,000 Americans about Their Biggest Concern,” Five Thirty Eight (May 17, 2022), accessed June 12, 2022, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-2000-americans-about-their-biggest-concern-the-resounding-answer-inflation/ .

[7] See interesting study in which students are retested a year after their final exams for a course of study.  It documents the rate of loss students experience in the memorized “knowledge.”  Daniel T. Willingham, “Ask the Cognitive Scientist:  Do Students Remember What They Learn in School,” American Educator (Fall 2015), accessed June 12, 2022, https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2015/willingham .

[8] Jessica Richardi, “The Paideia Program Is Worth another Look,” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 11, 1 (2021), accessed on June 12, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1650&context=jerap .

[9] Ibid.

[10] Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal:  An Educational Manifesto (New York, NY:  Collier Books, 1982).

[11] Zachary Jason, “Bored Out of Their Minds,” Ed. Magazine (Winter 2017), accessed June 12, 2022, https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/17/01/bored-out-their-minds , emphasis added.