JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXIII

 

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

          To date, this blog has been sharing a positive judgment of the parochial/traditional federalist construct’s utility in the development of a civics curriculum.  For that purpose, this blog has used William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum which are teacher, learner, subject matter, and milieu.[2]  That review is now considering “school’s socio-economic base” as an element of milieu.

School’s Socio-Economic Base

On an ongoing basis, research has indicated that there is a strong relationship between socio-economic-status (SES) and educational attainment and distribution of educational resources.  Of late, here is what the American Psychological Association had to say,

 

Research indicates that children from low-SES households and communities develop academic skills slower than children from higher SES groups. For instance, low SES in childhood is related to poor cognitive development, language, memory, socioemotional processing, and consequently poor income and health in adulthood. The school systems in low-SES communities are often underresourced, negatively affecting students’ academic progress and outcomes.[3]

 

Back in 1988, the late Jean Anyon found that the prevalent social economic class associated with a particular school influenced the type of instruction the students at that school received.[4]  According to more current research, things have not changed that much. 

          The tendency for students who attend what was identified as “working-class schools” relied on instruction based on rote memory work with little or no explanatory lessons without which, in turn, led to mechanistic learning.  This approach characterized instruction for students from lower income families across various subject areas (language arts, social studies, and math).  On the other hand, students who attend either “affluent professional schools” or “executive elite schools” are much more likely to be exposed to instruction that has them engaged in creative activities and independent work.

          This latter approach has students develop analytical skills useful in adult life.  In short, schools tend, through their hidden curriculum, to reinforce the social and economic inequalities that already exist.  Workers’ children are taught the disciplinary dispositions expected of them in the workplace and managers’ and problem-solvers’ offspring are taught skills they need to replace their parents in the management level or consulting positions.

          Success and advancement can be readily related to the skills and knowledge one would find with the more engaged approaches.  The US Department of Labor publication summarizes what is called for at the worksite of today:

 

In the workplace, there two kinds of skills:  technical skill and soft skills.  Knowing how to accomplish tasks like cooking, computer programming, or teaching, are called technical skills.  They relate to a particular occupation.  You may have learned technical skills from past work experience, school, or training.  These skills are often included in job listings to describe the tasks of a position.  Examples are:

·      Build a cabinet

·      Read an image

·      Operate equipment

·      Paint a portrait

·      Write computer code

·      Teach a lesson

·      Investigate a scientific question

·      Sell products to customers

Employers also want employees who fit in and get along well in the workplace.  That requires soft skills.  These are so valuable that soft skills are often the reason employers decide whether to keep or promote an employee.  Some soft skills can be taught in school.  But most you learn in everyday life and can improve at any time.  For example:

·      Good communication skills

·      Critical thinking

·      Working well in a team

·      Self-motivation

·      Being flexible

·      Determination and persistence

·      Being a quick learner

·      Good time management[5]

 

When comparing a perennialism-based curriculum, a la Mortimer Adler (reviewed in earlier postings), to curricula currently offered in working-class schools – along with their innate inequality – one can consider it wise to adopt Adler’s curricular proposal.  Specifically, that would be a single-track curriculum.[6]

          Adler pointed out that even workers in the transformed economy of the current economic landscape must develop analytical and problem-solving skills.  Students, to be successful in the post-industrial economy, whether they become workers on assembly lines, providers of services, or professional/managers, are more in need of skills that allow workers to analyze and make decisions from technically complex matters to making on-time deliveries.

          According to how a leading job-placement service puts it,

 

Creative problem-solving involves thinking of unconventional solutions to complex issues. Demonstrating creative problem-solving skills can make you an asset in any situation. Having a creative approach to problems is a skill that can make you an essential part of almost any workplace. Both highly technical careers in fields such as medicine and more service-oriented jobs such as administrative support need people who can creatively solve problems in order to overcome obstacles in the workplace.[7]

           

The cited service, “Indeed,” lists creative problem-solving third in its list of 14 essential skills.  These skills should be developed throughout the curriculum, and social studies is no exception.

          The last element of this commonplace, milieu, will be the topic of the next posting.  That would be “student culture.”  With that completed, this blog will revert to what this blogger has to say, i.e., his critique of the parochial/traditional federalist construct before he presents the advocacy for the natural rights construct.

---

[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] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] “Education and Socioeconomic Status,” American Psychological Association (n.d., but with references as recent as 2016), accessed June 26, 2022, https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.pdf .  Note:  apparently, in social science literature, the spelling underresource is acceptable.

[4] Jean Anyon, “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum Work,” in Curriculum:  An Introduction to the Field, 2^nd Edition, ed. James R. Gress (Berkeley, CA:  McCutchan, 1988), 366-389.  This article also appears in the following sits, https://www1.udel.edu/educ/whitson/897s05/files/hiddencurriculum.htm .

[5] This blogger cannot identify the site from which this quote was taken, but related sites are “Soft Skills to Pay the Bills,” U. S. Department of Labor (n.d.), accessed June 28, 2022, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/individuals/youth/transition/soft-skills AND “Soft Skills:  The Competitive Edge,” U. S. Department of Labor (n.d.) accessed June 28, 2022, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/publications/fact-sheets/soft-skills-the-competitive-edge .

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

[7] Indeed Editorial Team, “Top 12 Job Skills Employers Look for in Job Candidates,” Indeed (May 6, 2020/June 10, 2022), accessed June 26, 2022, https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/top-job-skills .

JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXIII

 

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

Expectations of Schools (cont.)

The last two postings reviewed the major philosophic schools of thought in the field of education.  There are four: perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructionism.  The reader is invited, using the archive feature, to read those postings if that has not been done.  Part of that text pointed out that parochial/traditional federalism, if used to guide civics education, would most likely be associated with perennialism and its focus on the grand traditions of Western civilization – its great ideas and great books.

          In further describing and explaining this connection, this posting will again focus on the work of Mortimer Adler and his updating of perennialism.  He calls for a signal track, i.e., the same curriculum for all students.  That single curriculum should emphasize a preparation to life in which one can go on learning.  In his Paideia curriculum, a prominent objective has to do with “the individual’s role as an enfranchised citizen of this republic.”[2]

          He writes,

 

The reason why universal suffrage in a true democracy calls for universal public schooling is that the former without the latter produces an ignorant electorate and amounts to a travesty of democratic institutions and processes.  To avoid this danger, public schooling must be universal in more than its quantitative aspect.  It must be universal also in its qualitative aspect.  Hence, … [an] objective of basic schooling – [is to have] an adequate preparation for discharging the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.[3]

 

Note the federalist bias toward duties and responsibilities.  But would a general education undermine the attempts of schools to prepare youngsters for the work-a-day world?  The argument of this perennial source is that it does not.  Adler explains,

 

As compared with narrow, specialized training for particular jobs, general schooling is of the greatest practical value.  It is good not only because it is calculated to achieve two of the three main objectives at which basic schooling should aim – preparing for citizenship and personal development and continued growth.  It is also good practically because it will provide preparation for earning a living.

          Of all the creatures on earth, human beings are the least specialized in anatomical equipment and in instinctive modes of behavior.  They are, in consequence, more flexible than other creatures in their ability to adjust to the widest variety of environments and to rapidly changing external circumstances.  They are adjustable to every clime and condition on earth and perpetually adjustable to the shock of change.

          That is why general, nonspecialized schooling has the quality that most befits human nature.  That is why, in terms of practicality and utility, it is better than any other kind of schooling.[4]

 

Therefore, the use of parochial/traditional federalism construct with its dependence on a methodology that relies on discussion of constitutional, republican ideas and ideals would not only instruct as to the duties and responsibilities the citizenry has or a general communal commitment it should have, but also would add, in a practical fashion, a preparation for all students in whatever course they choose. 

Therefore, current American curriculum should incorporate Adler’s prescriptions to be amenable to the interests of all socio-economic classes and their expectations.  And that completes this argument’s position on the expectations of schools.  The next element of this overall argument presents is a school’s socio-economic base. 

This blog will address it in the next posting and, if space allows, will also address student culture.  With those two elements, the overall argument promoting the parochial/traditional federalism will be completed and lead to this blogger’s overall critique of this construct.  That critique will be the last element of this blog’s review of this side of the dialect debate between parochial federalism and natural rights perspectives.  The blog will then address the antithesis – what would become basically the thesis – that being the natural rights view.

---

[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] Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal:  An Educational Manifesto (New York, NY:  Collier Books, 1982).  Page not available.

[3] Ibid., 17.

[4] Ibid., 19-20.

PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION (cont.)

 

To further contextualize this blog’s review of Mortimer Adler’s contribution – his application of the academic rationalist approach to curriculum development – this posting will complete its review of the four major philosophic traditions:  perennialism (academic rationalism), essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructionism (critical theory). 

What remains after the last posting’s descriptions of perennialism and essentialism are those of progressivism and reconstructionism.  And as with the last posting, this one will rely chiefly on Augsberg’s chart of educational philosophies.[1]

Progressivism.  This philosophy takes a more holistic approach and shies away from making distinctions between content and/or the teacher.  If anything, this approach zeroes in on process or instructional strategies that have students utilize experimental testing or studies.  By doing so, students are directed to actively test ideas through experiments; in short, progressivism calls for interactive education.

          As for content, it argues for students to use their experiences from their social worlds.  They are to question what they see and experience, especially as they take note of the problems that they, and the people they observe, encounter.  “Learning is rooted in the questions of learners that arise through experiencing the world. It is active, not passive. The learner is a problem solver and thinker who makes meaning through his or her individual experience in the physical and cultural context.”[2] 

And with that focus, effective teaching exposes students to active situations in which students learn by interacting and performing with what the situations demand or encourage.  So, learning becomes first-person, i.e., it results from what students do within the context of those situations.

Application of this approach has to date relied heavily on the scientific method which in turn imposes first-hand experiences in systematically organized lessons that usually test hypothetical claims or “if/then” speculations.  And the resulting learning does not rely on being told what to know, but on a process in which they take part and derive their answers to those various inquiries.  While this might sound somewhat modern, progressive education has a history stretching back to the mid-1920s. 

The leadership of John Dewey, until the mid-1950s, aimed efforts at improving the ways people lived their lives as citizens of a meaningful democracy not just as a political polity.  And that meant democratizing the nation’s institutions such as education.  “Shared decision making, planning of teachers with students, student-selected topics are all aspects [of this approach].  Books are tools, rather than authority.”[3]

Reconstructionism/Critical Theory.  The aims of this last philosophy have to do with social realities and how they relate to accomplishing a better society within a worldwide democracy.  The focus to attain those aims is to institute a curriculum that promotes social reforms.  Initially, the approach was spurred forward by the realities of World War II. 

At that time, under the leadership of Theodore Brameld, a new awareness evolved, that being a realization that humans could annihilate themselves through technology motivated by cruelty.  But there was another side to this realization in that humans could also bring about beneficial societal arrangements using those same technological capabilities.

          Another leader of this shift was George Counts.  He saw that education could be the vehicle by which society could create a new social order.  The path by which to accomplish such a lofty goal – to overcome oppressive practices – was by preparing people, beginning with young ones, to address and discover those practices and policies that set social efforts toward that just order.  For example – and citing another leader of this approach,

 

Paulo Freire (1921-1997) was a Brazilian whose experiences living in poverty led him to champion education and literacy as the vehicle for social change. In his view, humans must learn to resist oppression and not become its victims, nor oppress others. To do so requires dialog and critical consciousness, the development of awareness to overcome domination and oppression. Rather than "teaching as banking," in which the educator deposits information into students' heads, Freire saw teaching and learning as a process of inquiry in which the child must invent and reinvent the world. For social reconstructionists and critical theorists, curriculum focuses on student experience and taking social action on real problems, such as violence, hunger, international terrorism, inflation, and inequality.[4]

 

 

To seek out these varied ambitions, each dealing with those aspects of life that are controversial – especially as the approach is applied to social studies and literature – teachers are to utilize inquiry into various perspectives and concentrate on the dialogue – the language – that, first recognizes it as a language, and second, defines or realistically reflects the assumptions and contexts of that which is under study.  Where possible, the curriculum should be, according to this approach, in students’ “backyards,” their communities – i.e., implement a “first person” education.

One last point should be made.  This is not part of Augsberg’s chart, but it is the experience of this blogger that proponents of critical theory do seem to share a positive disposition toward Marxian philosophy.  For example, given the central role Paulo Freire played in promoting critical theory, one can definitely consider that influence to be well-categorized as Marxist.  Patrick O’Connor writes,

The academic consensus is that Freire advanced a radical and even Marxist educational theory and practice. Pedagogy of the Oppressed [Freire’s most noted book] is promoted as one of the founding texts of so-called “critical pedagogy.” This has been bolstered by the promotion of Freire by various pseudo-left figures internationally from the 1970s to the present day. This includes, in the US, linguist Noam Chomsky (“Freire is a radical revolutionary”) and educationalist Peter McLaren (Freire, he recently wrote in Jacobin, “continues to be a lodestar for teachers working in poverty-stricken communities across the globe, and for just about anyone who’s searching for a sense of justice in an unjust world”).[5]

 

This connection is not offered as a criticism, but hopefully as an attempt to be complete in this presentation.

In the spirit of being upfront, this blogger considers himself a progressive.  His reservation with that approach is its bias toward scientific research as a sole mode of investigation, to the exclusion of other modes such as historical approaches.  With the New Social Studies movement from the 1960s, the social studies national effort has favored inquiry as the favored instructional strategy. 

Despite this, that form of instruction has had little success in being adopted in America’s schools.  Teachers for the most part have not adopted inquiry as their go-to instructional practice.  Instead, they mostly rely on didactic methods.  On the other hand, a defender of parochial/traditional federalism would be apt to advocate perennialism.  

That school of thought and its siding with the Western civilization’s great ideas and great books fit neatly with parochial federalism’s origins and its reliance on religious and other philosophical traditions.  And with that rundown, one is better equipped to consider Mortimer Adler’s contribution to the description of the “milieu” commonplace of curriculum.

---

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

[2] Ibid., n.p.

[3] Ibid., n.p.

[4] Ibid., n.p.

[5] Patrick O’Connor, “Paulo Freire and the Pedagogy of the Pseudo-Left,” World Socialist Web Site, October 15, 2021, accessed June 19, 2022, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/16/frei-o16.html .

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.