I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.

John Dewey, 1897

In this post we will make the case that public education, which should NOT be privatized (as developed in the last post), should be rooted in progressive ideals that form the foundation of American democracy.

Wordle for this post on progressive education

Indeed, John Dewey said more than a 100 years ago that education is a process of living, and not a preparation for the future living. Yet, now, in the year 2012, education goals are almost purely based on “preparing” students for a global economy, and with the skills that will enable them to be “workers” in this economy. If you don’t believe me, here is the explanation for why America needs a new set of science standards. It comes from the Achieve website Next Generation Science Standards. The authors of the site write:

In 2007, a Carnegie Foundation commission of distinguished researchers and public and private leaders concluded that “the nation’s capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the modern workforce depend on a broad foundation of math and science learning, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility that lie at the heart of the American dream” (Carnegie Corporation). However, the U.S. system of science and mathematics education is performing far below par and, if left unattended, will leave millions of young Americans unprepared to succeed in a global economy.

• Reduction of the United States’ competitive economic edge
• Lagging achievement of U.S. students
• Essential preparation for all careers in the modern workforce
• Scientific and technological literacy for an educated society

Education for all is predicated on the unknown skills and abilities that will be needed in the future. In fact, we have a long history of basing K-12 education on what we think students will need to be worker bees once they are adults. Because of this kind of thinking, we developed an education system based not on the lived experiences and present life of students, but on something adults think they should become.

We need to think about education using another framework than the conservative (Republicans and Democrats, by the way) framework upon which contemporary education is based. The above quote is at the heart of the conservative framework. In order to make America more competitive, and have the right preparation for future “unknown” professions we accept experts’ opinions on what content should be learned by all students. Then we design tests that will measure whether students have learned this content. Using primarily bubble-in type questions, we claim that we can measure student achievement. Presumably, if achievement scores soar, so will our competitive edge, the stock market, the Gross Domestic Product, and overall literacy of society. It sounds “really” good, doesn’t it. Who could argue with such logic. Increase those test scores, at any cost, and by George, we are home free–robust economy, smart workers, more tax revenue, and on and on.

The problem is that this argument is not supported in research on economic growth, job preparation, or whether a nation is ready, able, and competitive. Come on, your saying. How can this be?

Economic competitiveness is not dependent on a singular and very simple variable as student achievement scores. When the economy tanked in 2007, academic scores of American students were continuing to rise (as they have for years). The economy went into free fall because of the moral and ethical behavior of adults, nearly all with college degrees, some, indeed with MBAs, and PHDs.

Iris Rotberg concludes that continuing to use student test scores is not a valid argument to understand a nation’s competitiveness. A nation’s competitiveness is too complicated, and affected more so by other variables as identified above. Rotberg explains as follows:

Other variables, such as outsourcing to gain access to lower-wage employees, the climate and incentives for innovation, tax rates, health-care and retirement costs, the extent of government subsidies or partnerships, protectionism, intellectual-property enforcement, natural resources, and exchange rates overwhelm mathematics and science scores in predicting economic competitiveness.

This is a very important conclusion. Students are being held accountable for how well they do on a test that supposedly measures the content knowledge that experts think they will need to make them and nation competitive, YET, the research does not support this as shown here, here and here.

Alternative to the Conservative and Dominant View of Education

Education needs to be public and local, and not privatized and national. Education should be a process of living, as Dewey said, and not a preparation for future living. The alternative to the conservative view is in George Lakoff’s theory of the “nation-as-family” conceptual metaphor. In Lakoff’s research he has shown that this conceptual metaphor produces two very different models of families: a “strict father” family and a “nurturing parent” family. In his view this creates two fundamentally different ideologies about how the nation should be governed. I am suggesting that these two views can teach us about how education in America should be organized and “governed.” The “strict father family” is the conservative view, and the “nurturant parent family” is the progressive view.

In his book, Thinking Points, Lakoff identifies the following as characteristics of the Nurturant Parent Family:

• A family of preferably two parents, but perhaps only one
• The parents share household responsibilities (Egalitarian)
• Open, two-way, mutually respectful communication is crucial
• Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers takes a significant part of the parents attention
• The principle goal of nurturance is for children to be fulfilled and happy in their lives
• When children are respected, nurtured, and communicated with from birth, they gradually enter into a lifetime relationship of mutual respect, communication, and caring for their parents.

In the progressive family, boundaries are set but in the context of building a caring environment with emphasis on building strong, open relationships. According to Lakoff, children develop best through positive relationships with others. Lakoff says that in this context, however, the parent (or teacher) can be authoritative but not authoritarian.

There are added values that emerge from the nurturing parent family and these include, protection, fulfillment in life, freedom, opportunity, fairness, equality, prosperity, and community.

There is a direct connection between the nation-as-family conceptual metaphor and the nurturing family which leads to key principles that emerge from progressive values. These will be fundamental not only in politics, but in education as well.

From Lakoff’s theory of nation-as-family conceptual metaphor, these four principles establish the context for progressive morality. Here are summarized from Lakoff, George (2006-10-03). Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision (Kindle Location 846). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

• The Common Good Principle–Citizens bring together their common wealth to build infrastructures that benefit all, and contributes to individual goals.
• The Expansion of Freedom Principle–Progressives demand the expansion of fundamental forms of freedom, including voting rights, worker’s rights, public education, public health, civil rights.
• The Human Dignity Principle–Empathy requires the recognition of basic human dignity and responsibility requires us to act to uphold it.
• The Diversity Principle–Empathy involves identifying with and connecting socially and emotionally with all people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation. Ethic of diversity in our communities, schools, workplaces.

The progressive view of education based on Lakoff’s theory lead to a school environment that is rooted locally, and for all practical purposes is child-centered, and not content centered. Although I am using Lagoff’s ideas to support the progressive view of eduction, progressive education has a long and storied history in American education.

Progressive education provided an alternative approach to traditional school. It emerged at the end of the 19th Century and reached its peak in the 1930s. Influenced by the writings of John Dewey, and other theorists, progressivism promoted the idea that students should be encouraged to be creative and independent thinkers allowed to act upon their interests. Progressive educational programs were learner-centered, and encouraged intellectual participation in all spheres of life. Dewey suggested that the Progressive Education Movement appealed to many educators because it was more closely aligned with America’s democratic ideals. Dewey put it this way:

One may safely assume, I suppose, that one thing which has recommended the progressive movement is that it seems more in accord with the democratic ideal to which our people is committed than do the procedures of the traditional school, since the latter have so much of the autocratic about them. Another thing which has contributed to its favorable reception is that its methods are humane in comparison with the harshness so often attending the policies of the traditional school. (John Dewey. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1938). pp. 33-34.)

Dewey’s analysis highlights the difference between the progressive and the conservative views of education, and compare with the analysis by George Lakoff.

In 1896, the laboratory school of the University of Chicago opened it doors under the directorship of Professor John Dewey. It is still open. Dewey’s idea was to create an environment for social and pedagogical experimentation. The school was learner-centered, and the curriculum was organized as an interdisciplinary approach to education. Teachers designed activities based on a theory of growth stages, and the activities engaged students in self-development and mutual respect. Dewey advocated the idea that thinking was an active process involving experimentation and problem solving. He also espoused the idea that the school had a political role as an instrument for social change.

Two aspects of the Progressive Education Movement that impacted all of education were the movement’s notion of the child-centered curriculum, and the project method. Both of these ideas exist today, and have been given different degrees of emphasis. For example, in the late 1960s and 1970s, the child-centered curriculum was represented in theHumanistic Education movement (sometimes known as affective education). The humanistic ideas of the present day were similar to the progressive ideals of the 1930s.

The child or student-centered approach is a major paradigm implying beliefs about the nature of learning, the goals of education, and the organization of the curriculum. Emphasis on student-centeredness has waxed and waned historically as educators evaluated its merits on the “Back to Basics” and “Structure of the (subject matter) Disciplines” paradigms.

A Couple of Ideas to Think About

The progressive education movement represents the earliest efforts to advocate a student-interest-centered instruction.John Dewey in particular wrote extensively of his work in the Chicago school to reconcile the dualism between traditional and progressive education. (Teachers still find writings of Dewey to be relevant to current reform efforts and practical dilemmas of teaching. Among hundreds of publications by Dewey, some classical works to consider include How We Think (1910), Democracy and Education (1916), Experience and Education (1938). In these you can find Dewey’s perspective on reflective thinking, learning as growth, and the theory of educative experience.)

Student-centered education does NOT mean the end of standards, but it begins with the notion that standards will be locally selected by professional educators who know best the foundations upon which their profession rests, but also understand child development and cognitive science to make the decisions that any other professional would make such as medical doctors and lawyers. Professional teaching standards are much more important in the progressive education movement because great responsibility for curriculum, instruction and assessment rests with the teacher, and local school (district).

The progressive education movement sparked the development of a number of experimental schools,which embodied the philosophy of the progressive educators. Teaching in the progressive schools was an opportunity to involve students directly with nature, hands-on experiences with real phenomena, and to relate learning to not only the emotional and physical well-being of the child, but to the curriculum as a whole. There is rich literature on this movement describing innovative child-centered programs such asDewey’s Schools of To-Morrow, the Gary (Indiana) plan, and The Parker School (Cremin, The Transformation of the School).

The progressive view of education rests on the shoulders of teachers, not experts who live in ivory tower settings, or on the boards of corporate and ideologically based think tanks.

The progressive teacher is an educator that Lakoff would describe as having an educational philosophy similar to progressive political world-view. The progressive teacher is seen as the authority in the classroom, but does not act on authoritarian principles. In a classroom led by a progressive teacher, the teacher is a nurturing parent. Students in the progressive classroom are analogous to children in a nurturing family, and they would be respected, nurtured, and encouraged to communicate with peers and the teacher from day one. The classroom would be viewed as a community of learners, as the family is seen as a community.

The progressive teacher’s beliefs about teaching are formulated by many factors, but two that stand out are empathy and responsibility.

The progressive teacher would be a highly qualified and certified professional who not only has a strong background in content and pedagogy, but has a range of experiences with youth enabling them to understand students and treat people through the eyes of progressive morality.

Progressive educators would be research oriented. That is, they would tend to experiment with new approaches to teaching and would also do action research in their own classrooms to improve the teaching/learning environment.

Progressive educators would ask lots of questions.

• Why is our state and district willing to accept a top-down authoritarian set of standards that weren’t developed with our students’ interests or aspirations in mind?
• Do you know what the research tells us about the ineffectiveness of using high-stakes tests on students achievement?
• Why does the state department of education have so much authoritative power over the inner workings of every school district in the state?
• Why aren’t educators involved in the development of curriculum based on the lived experiences of students, and the interests that students might have for getting involved in real work?

The progressive view of education is not a method, but more of a philosophy and way of seeing the world of education in the service of children and youth.

What is your view on this statement?: Education is a Process of Living and Not a Preparation for Future Living