Tweet

Education is fundamental to humanity, because it is how we truly become human. Some use the term “soul,” others use “self-actualization,” and many use “citizenship,” but these are just labels for the same thing: the idea that human beings can develop into something greater than our animal origins. We rise up from creatures of instinct to high functioning individuals who can obtain a higher understanding of the universe and recognize the beauty inherent in the world around us.

The purpose of education, and the motive behind the public education system, is to ensure that every child has access the tools necessary to discovering their own identity and achieving their full potential. However, education has developed over time from the conveying of knowledge to the understanding of how we approach knowledge itself. We can trace the origin of this philosophical intent to Plato and Aristotle, but the need for all people to pursue this noble path comes from the Romantics and their emphasis on a humanistic perfectibility.

The British poet John Keats, in his system of “soul-making,” compares the world to a school that forms the identity of the individual. Through experience, the individual is developed, becoming stronger and wiser and more able to handle a world filled with suffering and struggle (2012, pp. 101-104). In this system, Keats does not reject structured education but instead focused on the need to create a system that allows the individual to fully develop. Keats is a “Romantic” in that he saw it was possible for humanity to obtain an idea state of being.

In a similar vein, John Dewey, the father of the American public school system, argues that public schools must be fundamental in helping the individual maximize their potential to benefit both themselves and society as a whole. Like Keats, he views education in spiritual (though not quite religious) terms, and Dewey declares, “I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty…. I believe, finally, that the teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life” (1897, 80).

Although there is much diversity in the various ideologies among modern educators, those who see a moral purpose in education tend to favor objectivism, empiricism, and rationalism. In short, the heirs of the Romantics believe that there is a universe that exists outside of the self and there are certain paths of development that must be followed to obtain a greater relationship to that world. To develop, we must rely on both experience and reason, exploring the universe and figuring out what truths are inherent in our discoveries.

Traditionally speaking, this view is “progressive,” but not in the current political sense. Instead, the progressive educators believes that society, culture, and technology are ever improving, building on prior systems to approach some version of “perfectibility.” Individuals are given the tools to become the best they can be, to self-actualize, and, in turn, use their talents and understanding to further develop society. In this system, education serves as the catalyst for the individual’s development, and it is primary to all other considerations.

During Keats time, education was mostly done by rote, and many enlightened thinkers demanded reforms to allow education to become something more. Those like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (in Emile) and Mary Wollstonecraft (in Vindication) decried how children were treated like parrots, merely mimicking information to show off to parents instead of obtaining an understanding of important ideas. Children were trained to be obedient, and their beliefs were limited to only that which those in power deemed were most useful. They were not allowed independent thought, and they could not deal with the emotional complexity of a world that is often filled with pain and suffering as a result.

Progressive education was the inevitable response, seeking to incorporate experience to help build a child’s understanding of the world around them instead of filling their heads with data to be memorized and repeated. It was democratic in that it sought to provide all people with the ability to participate, and it was republican in its guiding others towards higher truths and to understand the important structures of society. It was a system born out of the 18th-century revolutionary spirit, the very spirit that inspired and fueled the Romantic movement and inspired the founding principles of the United States.

In terms of pedagogy, the core beliefs of a progressive education model apply to many of the current approaches to education, especially those associated with the constructivist and social learning philosophies. The classical progressive emphasis on using experience and problem solving to help develop learning is a proven method to reach students, and it also rejects the aspects of behaviorism that have been proven far too problematic.

Behaviorist approaches to education are far too mechanical and too much like the rote method that came before, especially when promotes the idea that “learning is viewed as conditioning where behavior that is followed by a reinforcer will increase in frequency or probability” (Schuh & Barab, 2007, p. 77). Although the behaviorist’s emphasis on pre-planning is beneficial (and necessary for all educators), the need to use fixed tests reduces the development the identity of individual children by limiting their ability to think for themselves. Cognitivists provide a more natural approach to learning with their focus on “subsuming new meaningful material,” but they are limited as the behaviorists when they require taught information to be “presented in its final form” (Schuh & Barab, 2007, p. 77).

Constructivists do not have these limitations that was condemned by the progressive educators. Ernst von Glaserfeld’s description of “Piaget’s schemes [providing] a means for individuals to construct their world using assimilation” (Schuh & Barab, 2007, p. 78) focuses on experience and critical thinking, which allows the identity of the student to play an important role in their education. However, the problem with constructivism, in its most radical sense, is that it could allow for relativism.

In defining “radical” constructivism, von Glaserfeld admits, “It starts from the assumption that knowledge, no matter how it be defined, is in the heads of the person…. What we make of experience constitutes the only world we consciously live in” (1995, p. 1). If everything is relative, then there is no end goal for society or for education as a whole. In essence, there cannot be any “improvement” if everything is equal just as we cannot have an understanding of where “improvement” would lead. Similarly, relativism is the greatest problem within social learning and situativity theory.

Ultimately speaking, the inheritor of the progressive education philosophy, and the system that the Romantics would mostly likely identify with if they were around today, would be what is known as culturally relevant pedagogy. In particular, Gloria Ladson-Billings, one of the greatest proponents of culturally relevant education, provides three standards that are hard to deny as essential to education: “(a) Students must experience academic success: (b) students must develop and/or maintain culturally competence: and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order” (1995 p. 160).

Although there can be some debate over the need for education to be “antagonistic” (a catalyst for radical social change or upheavel) that is common to culturally relevant pedagogy, Ladson-Billings provides a middle ground on the issue. She is definitely not Paulo Friere, who emphasizes “the pursuit of liberation” in radical, political terms (Freire 1993). Instead, Ladson-Billings seems to have the same goal of Keats and Dewey: that students “challenge the status quo” by developing their unique identity and taking an active role in society for the betterment of all. Furthermore, she embraces objective standards, emphasizing the role of ” literacy, numeracy, technological, social, and political skills” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 160), which sets her apart from the relativists.

What is most important to Ladson-Billings’s version of culturally relevant education is the focus on the individual and ensuring that the individual can succeed. To anyone who cares about society or education, this should be their primary focus. The only question, therefore, is how we define success.

We know that students learn best when they are guided, not commanded, and a totalitarian approach to education is one that provides little actual education. Learning requires cooperation of both parties, and the student must be treated as a partner instead of an object. The best way to connect with a student is to harness their experience without talking down to them or pandering. Thomas Gunning’s summary of collaborative education is really a summary of all of education:

Much of what we learn takes place through discussion with others or through scaffolding offered by adults and more knowledgable peers. In cooperative or collaborative learning group, students organize and test their learning when they present their ideas and views. By listening to others, students add to their own understanding and learn to view ideas from multiple perspectives, they gain not only information, but also insight into other ways of thinking (2012 p. 22).

Only relying on student based learning or collaborative learning is not the best method, but it is an essential component of a system that helps students become comfortable in their classes. Comfortability, in turn, is necessary for cooperation and a willingness to improve.

Gunning’s understanding of an ideal classroom helps students develop their own beliefs while understanding others. To challenge a student to develop their voice while giving the freedom allows them to take ownership of their education. Instead of being passive receptors, these students become active participants, and they will exert more effort in trying to improve themselves.

Activities built around discussion, collaboration, and team work go a long way to helping students develop their own thoughts while providing a means to connect to others around them. The influential economist and social philosopher, Adam Smith argues, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, that we can only truly obtain our own social identity when we are able to interact with others, learning from direct experience what actions lead to praise and censure.

However, it is also important that a teacher ensures that students are not mislead. There are certain important truths (e.g. definitions, classifications, and interpretations) that should be respected and understood, and a teacher’s job is to draw from a deeper pool of knowledge and experience to help their students make their way through a vast world of understanding. As such, students should view the teacher as both an expert and and a peer, one who has greater knowledge but not one who is removed from their social system. They are someone to look up to but not someone so removed that the student cannot one day obtain the same status.

A teacher’s job is also to provide support structures. They must use whatever tools they can to scaffold knowledge, breaking it down into understandable chunks that allow students at various levels to interact with content. They must also rely on their greater understanding and experience to help connect remote knowledge with student’s own life, making it relevant to their culture and place in addition to showing how it fits in with other lessons, units, and education objectives.

Sometimes, teachers must turn to lectures to provide raw knowledge. Other times, they must use Socratic or group-based discussions for students to interact with information. In all situations, their duty is to help students further themselves, to show what is important to know while allowing students to obtain it for themselves. A teacher is both to guide and to mentor, sharing an understanding of the topic with students and modeling activities to help them take ownership of the topic and their own education.

In terms of assessment, rigid, standardized assessment based instruction, essential to behaviorism, teaches students to respond but not to understand. So many students care about getting a “good grade” that they are unwilling to risk a harder class or pursuing a more difficult paper topic. Sometimes, the inability to obtain a good great has led to the idea that education is pointless. In either situation, students are taught to prefer mediocrity instead or taking risks.

We need to encourage risks, especially in education. Otherwise, students will never achieve something greater because they don’t understand that anything could even be “greater.” In particular Ladson-Billings emphasizes the need for challenging students and how students must also be willing to challenge themselves (1995, p. 160). Students also need to be allowed (and encouraged) to take chances and explore a higher understanding of a subject that might not help them on a standardized test.

While assessments are important to see if students are struggling in fundamental areas, but students should be taught that assessments are not the goal of education. The best assessments are those that help students measure their own progress as they move through a lesson or unit. It is necessary to provide students with clear rubrics, objectives, and standards, and teachers must take the time to explain how they are necessary in terms that go beyond achieving a certain grade. These standards should be guides to help the students develop themselves, to become something greater. They should not be a series of hoops to jump through.

The purpose of Romantic and progressive education is to help the next generation maximize their potential. We need to help unlock the innate desire for greatness that every human has within them, and we need to give them the tools to pursue this greatness. In a sense, all members of society must serve as educators for the next generation, imparting knowledge, wisdom, and experience to the next to help them become greater than the current age.

Works Cited

Dewey, John. (1897) My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54 (January), 77-80

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books.

Gunning, T. G. (2012). Building literacy in secondary content area classrooms. Boston: Pearson.

Keats, J. (2012) The letters of John Keats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ladson-Billing, G. (1995). But That’s Just Good teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 159-165

Schuh, K., & Barab, S. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J.M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 67-82 ). New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

von Glaserfed, E. (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Palmer Press