October 6...Dewey's Democracy and Education, Chapters 5-8
As per our class discussion, please post a question inspired by this week's reading. Also, post a reply to at least one of the questions. Let me know if you have any questions...
In what ways is adulthood "treated as a standard" and "immaturity as a lack" in our culture? How would our lives differ if childlike behavior and ideas were more welcomed in adult situations?
Is it true that animals cannot "learn to learn?"
Chapter 5
How is the idea of continuous "education as an unfolding" possible in a school environment that requires standards, objectives, curriculum...?
Chapter 6
Dewey says that "Progressive communities are not interested in reproducing behavior and ideas, but improving the future." He also says that "retrospective education," or the forcing of old ideas and traditions as a way of teaching children, is typical in schools. Is this true today? How can we escape "retrospective teaching" and really use education as a way to create a better future...?
Chapter 7
...but in this chapter, Dewey says that we should not waste time imaging an "idea society," but instead look at improving current society. How can we balance a realistic view of society with our need to create a better future through education?
At the end of this chapter, Dewey also talks about school systems exploiting students. How can this exploitation be avoided?
Chapter 8
Is it true that "an educator can no more set up aims for his students than the farmer can set up aims for his animals"?
How can today's system of education be changed so that, rather than "aims," we have "suggestions" for our students?
Disclaimer: Since I was at a conference and missed our last class, I am unsure what is meant/implied by “as per our class discussion,” and if I am missing the mark I apologize!
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (which I am reading for another class), Paulo Freire states, “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”
After reading 8 chapters of Dewey, how do you think he would respond to Freire’s statement? What do you think our current educational system teaches students about democracy and a just society? How might Dewey suggest that we address contemporary issues of educational inequity? (I’m showing my bias…)
For the most part, I am right on with what Dewey writes, and I find him very accessible, especially when compared to the Rorty readings. I feel like he makes a lot of good sense, but I did find a few areas where I’m just not clear.
One is in Chapter 6 under the section heading “Education as Recapitulation and Retrospection.” In the paragraph right before the next section heading (“Education as Reconstruction”) he writes about the instruction of “culture-products of past ages.” He writes that “the mistake of making the records and remains of the past the main material of education is that it cuts present a more or less futile imitation of the past, and tends to make the past a rival of the present and the ornament of solace….The present, in short, generates the problems which lead us to search the past for suggestions…” I get this, and I agree that teaching culture, in particular, as a historical, static artifact is extremely limiting and is a complete misrepresentation of the living nature of culture (or of any content area, really). However, what I can’t figure out is how does this play out in practice? In subject areas that tend to be more open to multiple interpretations (history, language, culture), can a fact- based foundation be laid down that is resistant to interpretations that deny the facts themselves? If not, then where does instruction even start? How do we look at the past in ways that are more likely to influence how we act in the present without first working with some version of what that past might be? I’m having a hard time articulating this question.
A couple of other ideas from Chapter 7 that resonate are the ideas that the quality of education is directly related to the quality of social life and that “only diversity makes change and progress.” I think if these two principles were thoughtfully incorporated into ed policy and curriculum development, education would do a much better job of meeting students where they are and opening up discourse with great potential to create better versions of our communities.
Hey all, I have two thoughts, focusing on the last two chapters of this week's assignment:
1. In chapter 7, Dewey talks about education as national and as social. One of the conceptions of education, he argues, historically was for social reasons. Of course, this looks a lot differently than for defending a country. Is education still for "social reasons" as Dewey defines it? If so, how might we define the social aims of today?
2. I found a part of chapter 8 very interesting when he compared the educator to the farmer. I find this very true, but what really surprised me (and again, I agree) is when he refers to the educator as either the parent or the teacher. I feel like there is a lot of finger point in the "dichotomy" of the education of the child in America -- "the teacher doesn't teach" and the "parent doesn't parent" ... yes, I'm generalizing, but I've heard both before. I wonder how Dewey would respond to today's finger pointing.
Dewey’s Chapters 5 through 8 provide more support for some of my recent thoughts that were formed after reading Maria Montessori for another class. I’m beginning to ask whether children as a whole are an oppressed group. If we define an oppressed group as one without power and voice, where outsiders impose their aims (my “on the fly” personal definition), then I would argue that for the most part • the way we are forcing students to (mostly) sit all day long • while teachers pour in knowledge, as Dewey writes: o knowledge based on accommodating the future to the past, o using a process from outside (as opposed to cultivating what’s inside) the individual, • largely determined by people far removed from that teachable moment, • only to require that the students regurgitate the knowledge at a later time, This is indeed a form of oppression.
Dewey provides wisdom for thinking through the purposes, outcomes and aims of education highlighting to me once again how 100 years after he penned “Democracy and Education” the American public education system has adopted, embraced or implemented so little of his perspective. I can’t cast that criticism without a mini-disclaimer that of course there are individual educators who work against the dominant institutional norms and who would be in-sync with Dewey’s ideas, but that individual rebellion is getting harder as the standardization movement takes public education in the opposite direction.
As I frequently wrestle when comparing sage wisdom to present day reality I seem to always circle back to the practical question: If we want to teach as Dewey recommends--prospectively, continuously reconstructing experience, drawing on the inner interests, cultivating the shard interests of all group members, and preparing them to interact, what would that look like? My daughter attended a Montessori pre-school for two years. I had a strong appreciation for the process and content of what she was being taught, but it is only now that I see that Montessori seems to have taken ideals such as those Dewey presents and put them into practice. I think we need more dialogue, templates and visions for how to implement Dewey’s ideas.
I’ll attempt to answer Mike’s first question – Is education still for social reasons, as defined by Dewey? I’ve recently spent some time focusing on Labaree’s “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals” (1997) and his conclusion, that I agree with, is that America has competing visions of 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility. I personally believe that the social mobility goal is dominating and gaining momentum, because of the money and institutional interests that support this goal. I wonder what Dewey would say about how we can reverse this direction.
“School facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their future careers. Accomplishment of this end demands not only adequate administrative provision of school facilities, and such supplementation of family resources as will enable youth to take advantage of them, but also such modification of traditional ideals of culture, traditional subjects of study and traditional methods of teaching and discipline as will retain all the youth under educational influences until they are equipped to be masters of their own economic and social careers.”
This quote was taken from the end of Chapter 7. I believe that the motivation behind the current standards movement was a genuine attempt to make education the “great equalizer” which Dewey described. But as the movement has intensified, it seems to have caused much more harm than good to students. It’s unrealistic to think that the standards movement will be completely abandoned so my question is, what realistic, incremental adjustments can be made to the current practices in public schools so that more children feel engaged in their education, experience success at school and leave “equipped to be masters of their own economic and social careers”?
Ginger, unfortunately it is still true today that retrospective education is the primary practice. I think the argument for that practice is that it “lays the foundation” for students. But it’s so far removed from children’s experiences that they don’t get as much out of it as they would spending their time engaged in subject matter that is current, interesting and relevant. In Chapter 5 Dewey addressed the ineffectiveness of teaching in isolation. In the second to last sentence he says, “Isolation of subject matter from a social context is the chief obstruction in current practice to securing a general training of mind.” I think a possible solution to using education to create a better future would be to condense the learning standards (quite a few of them are redundant) and restructure the curriculum to engage students in multidisciplinary project based learning- projects based centered around technology and our lives today. Imagine the projects that could be designed around our concerns about climate change.
Chapter 4
ReplyDeleteIn what ways is adulthood "treated as a standard" and "immaturity as a lack" in our culture? How would our lives differ if childlike behavior and ideas were more welcomed in adult situations?
Is it true that animals cannot "learn to learn?"
Chapter 5
How is the idea of continuous "education as an unfolding" possible in a school environment that requires standards, objectives, curriculum...?
Chapter 6
Dewey says that "Progressive communities are not interested in reproducing behavior and ideas, but improving the future." He also says that "retrospective education," or the forcing of old ideas and traditions as a way of teaching children, is typical in schools. Is this true today? How can we escape "retrospective teaching" and really use education as a way to create a better future...?
Chapter 7
...but in this chapter, Dewey says that we should not waste time imaging an "idea society," but instead look at improving current society. How can we balance a realistic view of society with our need to create a better future through education?
At the end of this chapter, Dewey also talks about school systems exploiting students. How can this exploitation be avoided?
Chapter 8
Is it true that "an educator can no more set up aims for his students than the farmer can set up aims for his animals"?
How can today's system of education be changed so that, rather than "aims," we have "suggestions" for our students?
Ginger
Disclaimer: Since I was at a conference and missed our last class, I am unsure what is meant/implied by “as per our class discussion,” and if I am missing the mark I apologize!
ReplyDeleteIn Pedagogy of the Oppressed (which I am reading for another class), Paulo Freire states, “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”
After reading 8 chapters of Dewey, how do you think he would respond to Freire’s statement? What do you think our current educational system teaches students about democracy and a just society? How might Dewey suggest that we address contemporary issues of educational inequity? (I’m showing my bias…)
Kate here
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I am right on with what Dewey writes, and I find him very accessible, especially when compared to the Rorty readings. I feel like he makes a lot of good sense, but I did find a few areas where I’m just not clear.
One is in Chapter 6 under the section heading “Education as Recapitulation and Retrospection.” In the paragraph right before the next section heading (“Education as Reconstruction”) he writes about the instruction of “culture-products of past ages.” He writes that “the mistake of making the records and remains of the past the main material of education is that it cuts present a more or less futile imitation of the past, and tends to make the past a rival of the present and the ornament of solace….The present, in short, generates the problems which lead us to search the past for suggestions…” I get this, and I agree that teaching culture, in particular, as a historical, static artifact is extremely limiting and is a complete misrepresentation of the living nature of culture (or of any content area, really). However, what I can’t figure out is how does this play out in practice? In subject areas that tend to be more open to multiple interpretations (history, language, culture), can a fact- based foundation be laid down that is resistant to interpretations that deny the facts themselves? If not, then where does instruction even start? How do we look at the past in ways that are more likely to influence how we act in the present without first working with some version of what that past might be? I’m having a hard time articulating this question.
A couple of other ideas from Chapter 7 that resonate are the ideas that the quality of education is directly related to the quality of social life and that “only diversity makes change and progress.” I think if these two principles were thoughtfully incorporated into ed policy and curriculum development, education would do a much better job of meeting students where they are and opening up discourse with great potential to create better versions of our communities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey all, I have two thoughts, focusing on the last two chapters of this week's assignment:
ReplyDelete1. In chapter 7, Dewey talks about education as national and as social. One of the conceptions of education, he argues, historically was for social reasons. Of course, this looks a lot differently than for defending a country. Is education still for "social reasons" as Dewey defines it? If so, how might we define the social aims of today?
2. I found a part of chapter 8 very interesting when he compared the educator to the farmer. I find this very true, but what really surprised me (and again, I agree) is when he refers to the educator as either the parent or the teacher. I feel like there is a lot of finger point in the "dichotomy" of the education of the child in America -- "the teacher doesn't teach" and the "parent doesn't parent" ... yes, I'm generalizing, but I've heard both before. I wonder how Dewey would respond to today's finger pointing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s Chapters 5 through 8 provide more support for some of my recent thoughts that were formed after reading Maria Montessori for another class. I’m beginning to ask whether children as a whole are an oppressed group. If we define an oppressed group as one without power and voice, where outsiders impose their aims (my “on the fly” personal definition), then I would argue that for the most part
ReplyDelete• the way we are forcing students to (mostly) sit all day long
• while teachers pour in knowledge, as Dewey writes:
o knowledge based on accommodating the future to the past,
o using a process from outside (as opposed to cultivating what’s inside) the individual,
• largely determined by people far removed from that teachable moment,
• only to require that the students regurgitate the knowledge at a later time,
This is indeed a form of oppression.
Dewey provides wisdom for thinking through the purposes, outcomes and aims of education highlighting to me once again how 100 years after he penned “Democracy and Education” the American public education system has adopted, embraced or implemented so little of his perspective. I can’t cast that criticism without a mini-disclaimer that of course there are individual educators who work against the dominant institutional norms and who would be in-sync with Dewey’s ideas, but that individual rebellion is getting harder as the standardization movement takes public education in the opposite direction.
As I frequently wrestle when comparing sage wisdom to present day reality I seem to always circle back to the practical question: If we want to teach as Dewey recommends--prospectively, continuously reconstructing experience, drawing on the inner interests, cultivating the shard interests of all group members, and preparing them to interact, what would that look like? My daughter attended a Montessori pre-school for two years. I had a strong appreciation for the process and content of what she was being taught, but it is only now that I see that Montessori seems to have taken ideals such as those Dewey presents and put them into practice. I think we need more dialogue, templates and visions for how to implement Dewey’s ideas.
I’ll attempt to answer Mike’s first question – Is education still for social reasons, as defined by Dewey? I’ve recently spent some time focusing on Labaree’s “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals” (1997) and his conclusion, that I agree with, is that America has competing visions of 1) democratic equality, 2) social efficiency, and 3) social mobility. I personally believe that the social mobility goal is dominating and gaining momentum, because of the money and institutional interests that support this goal. I wonder what Dewey would say about how we can reverse this direction.
“School facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their future careers. Accomplishment of this end demands not only adequate administrative provision of school facilities, and such supplementation of family resources as will enable youth to take advantage of them, but also such modification of traditional ideals of culture, traditional subjects of study and traditional methods of teaching and discipline as will retain all the youth under educational influences until they are equipped to be masters of their own economic and social careers.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote was taken from the end of Chapter 7. I believe that the motivation behind the current standards movement was a genuine attempt to make education the “great equalizer” which Dewey described. But as the movement has intensified, it seems to have caused much more harm than good to students. It’s unrealistic to think that the standards movement will be completely abandoned so my question is, what realistic, incremental adjustments can be made to the current practices in public schools so that more children feel engaged in their education, experience success at school and leave “equipped to be masters of their own economic and social careers”?
Ginger, unfortunately it is still true today that retrospective education is the primary practice. I think the argument for that practice is that it “lays the foundation” for students. But it’s so far removed from children’s experiences that they don’t get as much out of it as they would spending their time engaged in subject matter that is current, interesting and relevant. In Chapter 5 Dewey addressed the ineffectiveness of teaching in isolation. In the second to last sentence he says, “Isolation of subject matter from a social context is the chief obstruction in current practice to securing a general training of mind.” I think a possible solution to using education to create a better future would be to condense the learning standards (quite a few of them are redundant) and restructure the curriculum to engage students in multidisciplinary project based learning- projects based centered around technology and our lives today. Imagine the projects that could be designed around our concerns about climate change.