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.
No comments:
Post a Comment