In my mind, progressive educational ideas have proved so seductive because their appeal lies not in their practical effects but in their links to romanticism, the 19th-century philosophical movement, so influential in American culture, that elevated all that is natural and disparaged all that is artificial. The progressives applied this romantic principle to education by positing that education should be a natural process of growth that flows from the child’s natural instincts and interests. The word “nature” in the romantic tradition connotes the sense of a direct connection with the holy, lending the tenets of progressivism all the weight of religious conviction. We know in advance, in our bones, that what is natural must be better than what is artificial. This revelation is the absolute truth against which experience itself must be measured, and any failure of educational practice must be due to faulty implementation of progressive principles or faulty interpretation of educational results....The fundamental beliefs of progressivism are impervious to unfavorable data because its philosophical parent, romanticism, is a kind of secular theology that, like all religions, is inherently resistant to data. A religious believer scorns mere “evidences.”in a nutshell:
The Chasm Between
....The two sides [in the education wars] are best viewed as expressions of romantic versus classical orientations to education.* For instance, the “whole language,” progressive approach to teaching children how to read is romantic in impulse. It equates the natural process of learning an oral first language with the very unnatural process of learning alphabetic writing....The emotive weight in progressivist ideas is on naturalness. The natural is spiritually nourishing; the artificial, deadening. In the 1920s, William Kilpatrick and other romantic progressivists were already advocating the “whole language” method for many of the same reasons advanced today.
[snip]
[T]he classicist is quite willing to accept linguistic scholarship that discloses that the alphabet is an artificial device for encoding the sounds of language....
The progressivist believes that it is better to study math and science through real-world, hands-on, natural methods than through the deadening modes of conceptual and verbal learning, or the repetitive practicing of math algorithms, even if those “old fashioned” methods are successful. The classicist is willing to accept the verdict of scholars that the artificial symbols and algorithms of mathematics are the very sources of its power. Math is a powerful instrument precisely because it is unnatural. It enables the mind to manipulate symbols in ways that transcend the direct natural reckoning abilities of the mind.
[snip]
The romantic poet William Wordsworth said, “We murder to dissect”; the progressivist says that phonemics and place value should not be dissected in isolation from their natural use, nor imposed before the child is naturally ready. Instead of explicit, analytical instruction, the romantic wants implicit, natural instruction through projects and discovery. This explains the romantic preference for “integrated learning” and “developmental appropriateness.” Education that places subject matter in its natural setting and presents it in a natural way is superior to the artificial analysis and abstractions of language. Hands-on learning is superior to verbal learning. Real-world applications of mathematics provide a truer understanding of math than empty mastery of formal relationships.
Natural Supernaturalism
The religious character of progressivism is rarely noted because it is not an overtly religious system of belief. Romanticism is a secularized expression of religious faith. In a justly famous essay, T. E. Hulme defined romanticism as “spilt religion.” Romanticism, he said, redirects religious emotions from a transcendent God to the natural divinity of this world. Transcendent feelings are transferred to everyday experience—like treacle spilt all over the table, as Hulme put it. M. H. Abrams offered a more sympathetic definition of this tendency to fuse the secular and religious by entitling his fine book on romanticism Natural Supernaturalism. The natural is supernatural. Logically speaking, it’s a contradiction, but it captures the romantic’s faith that a divine breath infuses natural human beings and the natural world.
In emotional terms, romanticism is an affirmation of this world—a refusal to deprecate this life in favor of pie in the sky. In theological terms, this sentiment is called “pantheism”—the faith that God inhabits all reality. Transcendent religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism see this world as defective, and consider the romantic divinizing of nature to be a heresy. But for the romantic, the words “nature” and “natural” take the place of the word “God” and give nature the emotional ultimacy that attaches to divinity. As Wordsworth said,
One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,
Than all the sages can
—The Tables Turned (1798)
The romantic conceives of education as a process of natural growth. Botanical metaphors are so pervasive in American educational literature that we take them for granted. The teacher, like a gardener, should be a watchful guide on the side, not a sage on the stage. (The word “kindergarten”—literally “children-garden”—was invented by the romantics.) It was the romantics who began mistranslating the Latin word educare (ee-duh-kar’e), the Latin root word for education, as “to lead out” or “to unfold,” confusing it with educere (eh-diu’ke-re), which does mean “to lead out.” It was a convenient mistake that fit in nicely with the theme of natural development, since the word “development” itself means “unfolding.” But educare actually means “to bring up” and “instruct.” It implies deliberate training according to social and cultural norms, in contrast to words like “growth” and “development,” which imply that education is the unfolding of human nature, analogous to a seed growing into a plant.
The same religious sentiment that animates the romantics’ fondness for nature underlies their celebration of individuality and diversity. According to the romantics, the individual soul partakes of God’s nature. Praise for diversity as being superior to uniformity originates in the pantheist’s sense of the plenitude of God’s creation. “Nature’s holy plan,” as Wordsworth put it, unfolds itself with the greatest possible variety. To impose uniform standards on the individuality of children is to thwart their fulfillment and to pervert the design of Providence.
[snip]
Whether these educational tenets can withstand empirical examination is irrelevant. Their validation comes from knowing in advance, with certainty, that the natural is superior to the artificial.
A More Complicated Nature
Plato and Aristotle based their ideas about education, ethics, and politics on the concept of nature, just as the romantics did. A classicist knows that any attempt to thwart human nature is bound to fail. But the classicist does not assume that a providential design guarantees that relying on our individual natural impulses will always yield positive outcomes. On the contrary, Aristotle argued that human nature is a battleground of contradictory impulses and appetites. Selfishness is in conflict with altruism; the fulfillment of one appetite is in conflict with the fulfillment of others. Follow nature, yes, but which nature and to what degree?
Aristotle’s famous solution to this problem was to optimize human fulfillment by balancing the satisfactions of all the human appetites—from food and sex to the disinterested contemplation of truth—keeping society’s need for civility and security in mind as well. This optimizing of conflicting impulses required the principle of moderation, the golden mean, not because moderation was a good in itself, but because, in a secular view of conflicted human nature, this was the most likely route to social peace and individual happiness. The romantic poet William Blake countered, "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." But again, that would be true only if a providential nature guaranteed a happy outcome. Absent such faith in the hidden design of natural providence, the mode of human life most in accord with nature must be, according to Aristotle, a via media that is artificially constructed. By this classical logic, the optimally natural must be self-consciously artificial.
Renewed interest in evolutionary psychology has given the classic-romantic debate new currency....[E]volutionary psychology reintroduces in its own way the classical idea that there are inherent conflicts in human nature—both selfishness and altruism, both a desire to possess one’s neighbor’s spouse and a desire to get along with one’s neighbor. The adjudication of these contradictory impulses requires an anti-natural construct like the Ten Commandments. Similarly, from the standpoint of evolution, most of the learning required by modern schooling is not natural at all. Industrial and postindustrial life, very recent phenomena in evolutionary terms, require kinds of learning that are constructed artificially and sometimes arduously on the natural of the mind—a point that has been made very effectively and in detail by David Geary, a research psychologist specializing in children’s learning of mathematics at the University of Missouri. Geary makes a useful distinction between primary and secondary learnings, with most school learnings, such as the base-ten system and the alphabetic principle, being the “unnatural,” secondary type.
The very idea that skills as artificial and difficult as reading, writing, and arithmetic can be made natural for everyone is an illusion that has flourished in the peaceful, prosperous United States. The old codger Max Rafferty, an outspoken state superintendent of education in California, once denounced the progressive school Summerhill, saying:
Rousseau spawned a frenetic theory of education which after two centuries of spasmodic laboring brought forth... Summerhill.... The child is a Noble Savage, needing only to be let alone in order to insure his intellectual salvation... Twaddle. Schooling is not a natural process at all. It’s highly artificial. No boy in his right mind ever wanted to study multiplication tables and historical dates when he could be out hunting rabbits or climbing trees. In the days when hunting and climbing contributed to the survival of Homo sapiens, there was some sense in letting the kids do what comes naturally, but when man’s future began to hang upon the systematic mastery of orderly subject matter, the primordial, happy-go-lucky, laissez faire kind of learning had to go.
The romantic versus classic debate extends beyond the reading and math wars to the domain of moral education. The romantic tradition holds that morality (like everything else) comes naturally.... Wordsworth’s account of his own education, which he called “Growth of a Poet’s Mind,” contained a section entitled, “Love of Nature Leading to Love of Mankind.”
The romantic wishes to encourage the basic goodness of the natural soul, unspoiled by habit, custom, and convention. The principal means for such encouragement is to develop the child’s creativity and imagination—two words that gained currency in the romantic movement. Before the romantics, using the term “creativity” for human productions was considered impious. But that ended when the human soul was conceived as inherently godly. Moral education and the development of creativity and imagination went hand in hand. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, textbooks like the McGuffey Readers strongly emphasized moral instruction and factual knowledge. With the rise of progressive ideas, however, the subject matter of language arts in the early grades began to focus on fairy tales and poetry. The imparting of explicit moral instruction gave way to the development of creativity and imagination. Imagination, the romantic poet and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge said, “brings the whole soul of man into activity.” When we exercise our imaginations, we connect with our divine nature, develop our moral sensibilities.
Romance or Justice?
One cannot hope to argue against a religious faith that is impervious to refutation. But there can be hope for change when that religious faith is secular and pertains to the world itself. When the early romantics lived long enough to experience the disappointments of life, they abandoned their romanticism. This happened to Blake, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. One of Wordsworth’s most moving works was the late poem, “Elegiac Stanzas,” which bade farewell to his faith in nature.
Romancing the Child
By E. Donald Hirsch Jr.
Education Next
Spring 2001
Vol 1, no. 1
- Romantics (progressive ed) versus classicists (instructivism)
- Romanticism is a secularized expression of religious faith; it is "spilt religion."
- Pantheism (“the faith that God inhabits all reality") versus transcendent religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc.)
- the natural is supernatural (!) God is in nature
- the abstract is unnatural; the concrete is natural; the natural is good
- the natural = growth; the unnatural = instruction
- nature = wholeism ("We murder to dissect")
- nature = developmentalism (teach no subject before the child is "ready")
- Romanticism: children are naturally good & are to be developed via creativity & imagination
- diversity expresses the "plenitude of God's creation"
pop quiz
Which classroom best expresses the plenitude of God's creation:
- 19 or 20 heterogeneously grouped middle school students working collaboratively in groups on tiered projects
- 19 or 20 homogeneously grouped elementary school children reciting correct answers in unison on the teacher's signal
spilt religion - Hirsch on progressive education & Romanticism
David Labaree on the 2 factions
Labaree on constructivism
Hirsch on Labaree
Hirsch, E.D., "Romancing the Child," Education Next, 1 (Spring 2001).
Labaree, David F., "Progressivism, Schools, and Schools of Education: An American Romance," Paedagogica Historica (Gent), 41 (Feb. 2005), 275–89. (pdf file)
8 comments:
Math is most unnatural - it is only after we understand it within it's artificial axiomatic system that it seems natural. If math was so natural and could be learned in a completely natural setting we would have more mathematical geniuses out there and (at the very least) more people willing to forego maxing out their credit cards.
What about 19 or 20 students working at their own individual rates, at their own individual levels? Romanticism lauds diversity of individuals, of which Progressive Ed is deeply suspicious. In today's schools, only group-level cultural diversity passes muster.
oh heck
just lost my comment
It was about Labaree's book on the two forms of progressive ed: Dewey & Thorndike.
Dewey was child-centered; Thorndike was social efficiency, & sorting, etc.
Thorndike prevailed.
I think the contradiction between these two versions of progressive ed explains some of the weirdness of public schools.
At our 4-5 school students are required to work in groups & acceleration for GATE students has been banned, but the principal sent home a letter saying that differentiated instruction means that every student is receiving a unique curriculum (or words to that effect).
Yes, I think you're right about how this explains some of the weirdness. Schools purport to embrace diversity and different learning styles, and yet they hate individualized instruction. So "diversity" manifests itself mostly as lip service, or as "personal connections" in student journals.
Or "multiple solutions" in math, which some educators says is how they embrace all the different strategies that different students use. And yet every single child has to come up with a set of multiple solutions, or sit there and listen to the scores of different solutions that each student in the class came up with.
right, absolutely --- and it's bewildering to those of us who hail from a different philosophical tradition
The Labaree article is: Progressivism, Schools and Schools of Education: An American Romance
David F. Labaree
Paedagogica Historica,
Vol. 41, Nos. 1&2, February 2005, pp. 275–288
It's easy to find on Google (I think).
There are also two posts on the blog about Labaree.
Thanks, Catherine,
For now, I've only had time to scan through the Labaree article. Very interesting.
Two things strike me. First, it seems to me that some "administrative progressivist" ideas (as I understand the term) have made it into the dominant ed school dogma. Specifically, all those "real world" connections that students are supposed to make, and the notion that working in groups prepares students for cooperative work in the real world.
Second, Labaree talks about how it was a reaction against the "cold," "scientific" mindset of administrative progressivism that caused people in teacher ed programs to flock over to the much more romantically appealing pedagogical progressivism. But it seems to me that pedagogical progressivism will always have this appeal no matter what it's defined against, because, to the uncritical ear, it sounds so good.
So I'd predict that, even if instead of administrative progressivism, the dominant practices in schools were exactly what many of us at ktm would like them to be, many people at ed schools find it beneath them to bother with such nuts and bolts.
For many who've chosen the armchair over the classroom, pie in the sky will always appeal more than pragmatics.
Specifically, all those "real world" connections that students are supposed to make, and the notion that working in groups prepares students for cooperative work in the real world.
I need to re-read Labaree.
I'm wondering about something similar...I'm wondering how Dewey felt about knowledge.
I do recall a Hirsch essay saying Dewey didn't like books very much (I'll find & post) -- but I'm wondering whether he really had the anti-knowledge attitude that seems to have been Thorndike's specialty.
Of course, there's also the issue of ed schools being set in a kind of opposition to the rest of the university.
Apparently (some) ed schools actually refer to the courses their students take outside the ed school as "content courses." I believe this is the terminology used at Columbia.
I think you're right that folks at ed schools aren't going to be drawn to precision teaching or DI no matter what.
At some level, I see it as a matter of temperament.
I don't know whether that's true, but I feel it myself....beyond the issue of whether constructivist methods teach efficiently or well, I just don't like them.
My whole life is about "projects"; I'm a book writer, for god's sake.
The very word "projects" sounds deeply not-fun to me.
There's a reason why we say "short and sweet," not "huge, big, long, no-end-in-sight and sweet"
Post a Comment