Please complete the questions based on the provided texts. Answers should be in complete sentences
Note
Last week we rushed through the lesson on Zotero and on using the proxy server. If you’d like to explore it in more depth, please reach out to me and we can schedule an individual tutorial. Also, if you are relatively proficient in using Zotero, let me know and we can offer you as a resource to others.
Reading
Dewey, J. (1907). The school and social progress. Chapter 1 in The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Note that I have provided you with both Chapter 1 and Chapter
2
; you need only read Chapter 1, though some of you may find Chapter 2 interesting also.
Brief background on Dewey:
.
Questions
1. Describe what Dewey means by “The New Education.”
2. Discuss Dewey’s perspective on the systems within which education is embedded.
3. How does Dewey define society?
4. Describe how Dewey views the role of order in a school.
5. What tensions does Dewey detect between the needs of society and the needs of the individual?
Reading
Wolk, S. (2007). Why go to school? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 648–658.
Question
6.
Before reading the article:
list three reasons why we as a society want young people to go to school.
7.
After reading the article:
The author quotes Alex Molnar: “Are the issues studied in school the most important issues facing mankind?” What are several of these issues today? Are they studied in the schools that you are familiar with?
8. How might you use an article like this when discussing curriculum and instruction with a school board or other governing body?
2
STEVEN WOLK is an associate professor in the Teacher Education Department at
Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago (e-mail: S-Wolk@neiu.edu).
648 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
WHY
GO TO
SCHOOL?
If the purpose of our schools is to prepare drones
to keep the U.S. economy going, then the
prevailing curricula and instructional methods are
probably adequate. If, however, we want to help
students become thoughtful, caring citizens who
might be creative enough to figure out how to
change the status quo rather than maintain it, we
need to rethink schooling entirely. Mr. Wolk
outlines what he considers to be the essential
content for a new curriculum.
BY STEVEN WOLK
L
AST YEAR my son’s homework in second grade was 400
worksheets. The year before, in first grade, his homework
was also 400 worksheets. Each day he brought home two
worksheets, one for math and one for spelling. That was
two worksheets a day, five days a week, 40 weeks a year.
The math was little more than addition or subtraction
problems. The other worksheet was more insidious. My
son had 15 spelling words each week. On some days his
worksheets required him to unscramble the spelling words. On other days
MAY 2007 649
we studied. Boredom is a disease of epidemic proportions. . . .
Why are our schools not places of joy?”2 Our nation is af-
flicted with a dearth of educational imagination, a lack of
pedagogical courage, and rampant anti-intellectualism. Our
schools should be think tanks and fountains of creativity,
but most of them are vacuum chambers. Nearly 70 years
ago John Dewey wrote, “What avail is it to win prescribed
amounts of information about geography and history, to win
the ability to read and write, if in the process the individual
loses his own soul?”3
Our textbook-driven curricula have become educational
perpetual motion machines of intellectual, moral, and cre-
ative mediocrity. We dumb down and sanitize the curric-
ulum in the name of techno-rational efficiency and “Amer-
ican interests.” It is Frederick Winslow Taylor — the turn-
of-the-century father of scientific management — run amok.
For example, when some middle school teachers developed
an inquiry-based social studies unit that required their stu-
dents to actively participate in creating a curriculum that
would make them think for themselves, the teachers were
repeatedly confronted with the silent passivity of what they
called “the glaze.” As one teacher commented:
The students are so used to having the teacher spoon-
feed them what they’re supposed to know. . . . Stu-
dents accustomed to efficient, predictable dissemi-
nation of knowledge were confused, silent, even hos-
tile when told they must decide for themselves how
to proceed on a project or when confronted with an
ambiguous question such as, “What do you think?”4
When our children’s school experiences are primarily
about filling in blanks on worksheets, regurgitating facts
from textbooks, writing formulaic five-paragraph essays,
taking multiple-choice tests, and making the occasional
diorama — that is, when they are devoid of opportunities
to create an original thought — we should expect the ob-
vious outcome: children — and later adults — who are un-
he had to write a sentence with each word. And on still
other days he had to write each spelling word five times.
The school was teaching my 7-year-old that the wonder-
ful world of learning is about going home each day and
filling in worksheets.
Actually, that was his “official” homework. We were
given permission to give him alternative homework. In place
of his spelling worksheet, we set up a writing workshop at
home in which he was free to write something real, such as
a letter, a poem, or a story. Unfortunately, this was often a
struggle because Max wanted to do “school.” He learned
at the ripe age of 7 that he could whip out those spelling
sentences without a single thought, so that’s what he usual-
ly insisted on doing.
My son’s worksheets are a symptom of a far graver edu-
cational danger. More than the practice of a few teachers,
they represent the dominant purposes of schooling and the
choices of curriculum in our nation. We are engaged in fill-
in-the-blank schooling. One of the most telling statistics
about our schools has absolutely nothing to do with stan-
dardized test scores: on a typical day most Americans 16
years old and older never read a newspaper or a book.1
My son’s experience of school is little different from my
own when I was his age. My schooling was dominated by
textbooks, teacher lectures, silent students, and those same
worksheets. And it is identical to what my current teacher
education students endured when they were in school and
also to what they see today in their clinical experiences. My
college students are, by their own admission, poster children
for our factory-model 400-worksheet schools and their su-
perficial and sanitized curricula.
We are living a schooling delusion. Do we really believe
that our schools inspire our children to live a life of thought-
fulness, imagination, empathy, and social responsibility? Any
regular visitor to schools will see firsthand that textbooks
are the curriculum. A fifth-grader is expected to read about
2,500 textbook pages a year. For all 12 grades that student
is expected to “learn” 30,000 pages of textbooks with a never-
ending barrage of facts, most of which we know are for-
gotten by the time the student flips on his or her TV or iPod
after school. Far more than reading to learn, our children
are learning to hate reading. More than learning any of the
content, they learn to hate learning.
Will those 30,000 pages of textbooks and years of sit-
ting at a classroom desk inspire a child to be a lifelong reader
and learner and thinker? Who are we kidding? I’m inside
schools a lot, and I usually see what John Goodlad described
a generation ago in his classic study, A Place Called School.
After observing classrooms across the country and more than
27,000 students, he wrote, “I wonder about the impact of
the flat, neutral emotional ambience of most of the classes
A fifth-grader is expected to read about
2,500 textbook pages a year. For all
12 grades that student is expected to
“learn” 30,000 pages of textbooks
with a never-ending barrage of facts,
most of which we know are forgotten
by the time the student flips on his or
her TV or iPod after school.
650 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
able to think for themselves. None of this should surprise
us. Passive schooling creates passive people. If we want peo-
ple to think, learn, and care about the many dimensions of
life, if we want neighbors who accept the responsibility of
tending to the world and working to make it a better place,
then we need schools and curricula that are actually about
life and the world. Instead, we have schools that prepare
children to think like a toaster.
OFF TO SCHOOL WE GO
Each day millions of American children enter their class-
rooms. Why? What is the purpose of school? What should
its purpose be? As our children leave our classes and grad-
uate from our schools, how do we want them to be? Not
just what do we want them to know, but how do we want
them to be? What habits of mind? What attitudes? What
character? What vision? What intellect? Yes, we want them
to have acquired certain factual knowledge, such as the
dates of the Civil War, how to work with fractions, how to
write a letter, and at least an acquaintance with the miracle
of photosynthesis. But what do we want them to care about?
Do we want them to watch TV for three hours a day? Do
we want them to look at trees with awe? Do we want them
to read great books? Do we want them to wallow in political
and cultural ignorance? Do we want them to vote? Do we
want them to feel empathy for the poor and oppressed? Do
we want them to appreciate the poetry of William Carlos
Williams? Do we want them to define their self-identity by
the walls of an office cubicle? What life do we want to in-
spire them to live?
Of course, my question, Why go to school? is not new;
it has been vigorously debated for millennia. Plato, Thomas
Jefferson, Rousseau, Leo Tolstoy, Dewey, Franklin Bobbitt,
and Alfred North Whitehead, among countless others, have
joined the debate about the aims of schooling. More re-
cently, people from all over the political and pedagogical
map, from E. D. Hirsch to Alfie Kohn to Maxine Greene to
James Moffett to Carl Rogers, have argued for their vision
of what and why our schools should be. And once each
of us answers that question, we are morally bound to cre-
ate curricula and classrooms that strive to fulfill those pur-
poses. Otherwise our words and passions are nothing but
empty rhetoric, just like so many school mission statements
with their language of “global citizens” and “critical think-
ers.” So we must publicly reinvigorate what Nel Noddings
refers to as the “aims talk” of school.5 We must deeply ques-
tion the schools and curricula we have; we must ask what
it means to be educated and what it means to be human.
There is no neutral ground here; we have decisions to
make. Either we remake our schools into vibrant workshops
for personal, social, and global transformation, or we must
own up to our complicity in perpetuating a superficial, un-
thinking, and unjust world.
SCHOOLING FOR WORKERS
The real barometer of the aims of our schools today is
what’s being said in our newspapers and our legislative as-
semblies. These mainstream voices and the proclamations
emanating from the bully pulpit — be they newspaper edi-
torials or speeches by the President — rule the public con-
versation and create our national school identity. And what
do these powerful voices have to say? What is the “offi-
cial” public discussion about the aims of our schools?
If aliens from outer space landed on Earth and read our
newspapers, listened to our elected representatives talk about
our “failing” schools, and observed inside our classrooms,
what would they conclude are the aims of our schools?
That’s easy. Our children go to school to learn to be work-
ers. Going to school is largely preparation either to punch
a time clock or to own the company with the time clock
— depending on how lucky you are in the social-class sort-
ing machine called school. Why else give kids 400 work-
sheets? Why else give children so little voice in what to learn?
Why else teach children a curriculum that avoids contro-
versy and debate and open inquiry? When the United States
was building up to attack Iraq, some of my graduate stu-
dents were forbidden by their school administrators to dis-
cuss the war with their students. Not talk about a war? How
can a democracy silence its schools and teachers? What
are we afraid of?
Virtually every newspaper article and editorial, every
radio report and discussion, every political speech and gov-
ernment policy that I read or hear says, either implicitly or
explicitly, that the aim of our schools is to prepare future
workers. The specific language may differ, but the message
is the same and crystal clear. Remember the opening para-
graph of A Nation at Risk:
Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged pre-
eminence in commerce, industry, science, and tech-
nological innovation is being overtaken by competi-
tors throughout the world. This report is concerned
with only one of the many causes and dimensions
of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds
American prosperity, security, and civility.6
And there we have the primary aim of our 400-work-
sheets-a-year schools: money. The United States is the rich-
est and most powerful country on Earth, and our schools
exist to keep it that way, even if our role as citizens should
be to question those assumptions and the exercise of that
MAY 2007 651
power. Here is a typical example from an article in the
New York Times on the push to move away from so-called
fuzzy math and teach more math “basics”:
The frenzy has been prompted in part by the grow-
ing awareness that, at a time of increasing globali-
zation, the math skills of children in the United States
simply do not measure up: American eighth-graders
lag far behind those from Singapore, South Korea,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and elsewhere.7
While the article does quote an advocate of “fuzzy” math,
the assumption that adapting to globalization — that is, main-
taining American economic dominance — should dictate
our math curriculum goes completely unchallenged.
A recent issue of Time bore the cover line “How to
Build a Student for the 21st Century” (an unintentionally
ironic title using a 19th-century metaphor of manufactur-
ing). The authors of the cover story articulated their vision
of the schools we need. In the entire article, they mentioned
just one purpose for school: preparing our children to suc-
ceed in the “global economy.”8 That’s it. The bottom line.
These economic purposes of our schools are so entrenched
that they have seeped into our children’s consciousness. Ask
adolescents why they go to school, and you will almost uni-
versally hear a response solely concerned with their future
employment. What does it say about a nation whose chil-
dren define “education” as little more than preparation for
work? Nel Noddings writes:
It is as though our society has simply decided that the
purpose of schooling is economic — to improve the
financial condition of individuals and to advance the
prosperity of the nation. Hence students should do
well on standardized tests, get into good colleges, ob-
tain well-paying jobs, and buy lots of things. Surely
there must be more to education than this?9
Adults like to tell children that they will be judged by
their actions. The same is true for our schools. Here are the
values of our schools based on their actions: kids don’t need
to appreciate art to compete with South Koreans; they don’t
need intellectual curiosity to sit at a desk and do tax returns;
they don’t need creativity and imagination to plan a business
meeting; they don’t need to be media literate to sell heat-
ing and cooling systems; they don’t need to promote peace
to manage a grocery store; they don’t need to care for the
environment to be a lawyer; and they don’t need to nurture
a happy family to be a chemist. So the content that would
foster these unnecessary dispositions gets little time in school.
While a thoughtful democratic nation requires people who
read widely, a nation of workers just needs people with the
technical ability to read a manual or product distribution re-
port. A nation of workers does not need to vote, feel his-
torical empathy, be informed of current events, act to end
prejudice, question cultural assumptions, or care for peo-
ple in other countries. Workers just need to produce and
fulfill their role as consumers. In the end, the only educa-
tional data that really matter aren’t our children’s GPAs,
they’re the GDP and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
SCHOOLING FOR ANTI-CITIZENSHIP
While the preparation of “citizens” may be in every school
mission statement, our performance in that area is dread-
ful. We barely get half of our citizens to vote, and our young-
est voters — 18- to 24-year-olds right out of high school
and college — continually shun the ballot box in the great-
est numbers. In 2000, only 36% of that group cast a ballot
for President; in 2004, only 47% voted; in our most recent
2006 midterm elections — with a war raging in Iraq — only
24% of 18- to 29-year-olds voted.10 In one survey less than
10% of American 17- to 24-year-olds reported they “follow
public affairs.”11 In another survey barely 13% of 18- to 24-
year-olds agreed with the statement “I am interested in pol-
itics.”12 In yet another survey almost twice as many Ameri-
cans could name the Three Stooges (73%) as could name
the three branches of government (42%).13
My college students know virtually nothing of current
events. Even most of those who do vote admit they do so
with little understanding of the issues and the candidates’
positions. I assign my social studies methods class to write
an “ideology paper” setting forth their personal opinions on
three controversial political issues. I tell them they cannot
inspire their students to shape their ideologies if they are
not actively shaping their own. My students fret about this
assignment; they don’t know what to think. As one student
blurted out in class, “But I was never taught how to do this!”
And we wonder why so few Americans read a newspaper
or understand foreign policy. It’s the schools, stupid.
Why are there no blazing headlines condemning our
schools for failing to prepare an educated and active citi-
zenry? Because, contrary to the political and educational
rhetoric, civic engagement for “strong democracy” isn’t
really an aim of our schools.14 If it were, then dramatically
different things would be happening inside our classrooms.
Rather than reading the Disney version of our democracy in
a textbook, our students would be living the complex and
“messy” realities of democracy in their classrooms. Rather
than being places where students sit in silence as their
teachers talk all day, our classrooms would be dynamic
public spaces where the authentic and vibrant discourse of
daily democracy would be an essential part of the school
experience.15 Rather than providing all of the “answers” in
652 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
the form of textbooks, our schools would use critical and
moral inquiry as a way to shape individual identity, build a
better nation, and create a more caring world. Our schools
would be helping students to ask the questions and then
to seek out — as true communities of learners — the pos-
sibilities.
WHAT DOES SCHOOL NOT TEACH?
Over 20 years ago Alex Molnar asked, “Are the issues
studied in school the most important issues facing man-
kind?”16 He surveyed teachers and administrators and asked
them to list the most important issues facing our world and
to indicate whether they were studied in school. They listed
nuclear disarmament, environmental destruction, poverty,
racism, sexism, genetic engineering, and “alternatives to
existing forms of U.S. political, social, and economic or-
ganization.” Overwhelmingly the respondents felt these
topics should be an important part of school, but not many
felt they were a significant part of any curriculum. Why not?
How can a nation as “smart” as the United States ignore the
knowledge and dispositions essential for creating a thought-
ful, just, and joyful citizenry? How can adults allow such
a superficial and damaging vision of what it means to be
“educated” to persist?
To see the gaping holes in the curricula of most of our
schools, we need to get specific. I’ll now offer a brief over-
view — quite assuredly incomplete — of what our schools
choose not to teach because of their unquestioned devotion
to preparing workers, rather than educating people. Of course,
all across our nation there are heroic schools and teachers
that make this neglected content a vital part of their stu-
dents’ school experiences. Unfortunately, these are the ex-
ceptions to the rule, and they usually exist within a sys-
tem of schooling that is hostile to those who question the
status quo and the economic purposes of our schools. Cre-
ative and critical teachers are working more often in oppo-
sition to the system than with it.
There are several ideas common to all of the following
suggestions for content schools should be teaching but
aren’t. First is the idea of making school inquiry-based. A
curriculum built around inquiry — that is, questioning, in-
vestigating, and analyzing our lives and the world in depth
with authentic resources and projects — makes the inquiry
process itself part of the content to be learned. By doing
“inquiry” across the curriculum, children learn to ask ques-
tions, seek knowledge, understand multiple perspectives,
and wonder about the world. Second, this content is not
just for middle school or high school but should be an im-
portant part of every grade beginning in kindergarten. And
third, we must honor our children’s uniqueness. There is not
just one way to learn anything. The fact that our schools take
children who are very different and seek to force them in-
to the same schooling and learning mold is just further evi-
dence of their disrespect for children as individuals.
Self. Who are you? What defines you? If your entire be-
ing were turned into a list of ingredients, what would be
listed first? Parent? Veteran? Poet? Pacifist? American? Artist?
Friend? Or would it be Employee? I doubt many people
would list their job first. While our jobs are important to
many of us, they do not define who we are; they are just
one part of our being. Yet our schools operate as if the only
part of us worth educating is the part that will determine
our future as an economic cog. When Johnny graduates,
do we really know Johnny as a distinctive being? Did we
appreciate his unique self? Have we helped Johnny to know
Johnny at all?
Patrick Shannon writes that schools are in the “identity
creation business.”17 We may think school is about math
and history, but it’s equally about shaping who we will be
and who we will not be. Ask Johnny what school is about,
and he will list school subjects like math and reading, but
what he will never say is that school is about me. The iden-
tities that our schools purposely shape are directed by the
demands of American capitalism rather than the needs of
human beings. School defines people by test scores, stanines,
and GPAs. Johnny the fourth-grader is no longer Johnny; he
is 4.3 and 3.9 and 5.2.
In contrast, schools could help children explore the ques-
tions “Who am I?” “How did I become me?” and “Who do
I want to be?” Then the most important “subject” in school
is no longer reading or science, but Johnny. Environmental
educator David Orr writes, “We must remember that the
goal of education is not mastery of knowledge, but the mas-
tery of self through knowledge — a different thing altogeth-
er.”18 If school is not helping children to consciously shape
their cultural, political, and moral identities, then we are fail-
ing to educate our children to reach their greatest poten-
tial.
A love for learning. Is it really possible to inspire peo-
ple to live a life of learning and wonder, if throughout their
schooling children are always told what to learn, when to
learn, and how to learn? How will we ever own our learn-
ing — and even own our mind — outside of school if we
are rarely allowed to own either inside our classrooms? If
we’re serious about nurturing lifelong learners, then we must
allow them some significant ownership of their learning.
This means giving students some control over what they study
and how they show their learning. Children should have reg-
ular opportunities across the curriculum to initiate learning,
explore their own questions, and learn about their own in-
terests. Choice and ownership can easily be made part of
MAY 2007 653
every school day. We can allow children to choose what
books to read for independent reading, what topic to re-
search in a unit on South America, what genres to write in
during writing workshop, and what project to create to show
what they learned in their science unit on ocean ecosys-
tems. And by allowing students some control over their
learning, we are honoring their “intelligences” and respect-
ing their unique strengths.
We can also give children one hour each day to study
topics of their own choosing. I did this as a teacher, and
our “morning project time” was bustling with students pur-
suing their questions about the world. For example, at one
time my fourth- and fifth-graders were studying cheetahs,
the CIA, turtles, Georgia O’Keefe, becoming a teacher, the
history of pencils, architecture, bats, dinosaurs, Beethoven,
pandas, the court system, roof shingles, the space shuttle,
the atomic bomb, dolphins, artificial intelligence, jaguars,
the history of pizza, Native Americans of the Northwest,
and endangered species of Africa.19 These projects were not
done frivolously; I had high expectations for their work.
The students initiated the topics and then, collaboratively
with me, shaped them into meaningful and purposeful in-
quiry-based projects. There is little that is more important
for our schools to teach children than to pursue their own
intellectual curiosity about the world.
Any school aiming to nurture a love of learning must
also aim for a love of reading. A lifelong reader is a life-
long learner. But schools must do more than teach a love
for reading; they must reduce or eliminate practices that teach
children that reading is a laborious “school thing.” I have
never met a child who ran home to crack open The Rise of
the American Nation. We know perfectly well that children
hate reading textbooks, because we hated reading them too.
Using textbooks should be the exception, not the rule; in-
stead, students should be immersed in reading authentic,
fascinating, interesting, critical, thoughtful, and relevant texts.
And school must surround students with the astonishing
children’s and young adult literature available today, which,
besides including great stories and beautiful writing, is one
of the very best ways to teach the content advocated in this
article.
Caring and empathy. Nel Noddings has written exten-
sively and eloquently about the vital need to teach for car-
ing in our classrooms. She writes that caring should be the
foundation of our curriculum and that its study should in-
clude caring for self, family, friends, “strangers and distant
others,” animals and plants, the Earth and its ecosystems,
human-made objects, and ideas.20 What can be more es-
sential to the health of a democracy than caring citizens?
Yet explicitly teaching “caring” rarely goes beyond kinder-
garten. In schools obsessed with teaching “technical” knowl-
edge and questions with single correct answers, the idea of
teaching children and young adults to care is seen as not
being sufficiently “rigorous.” Rather than being applauded
as essential to nurturing empathetic and thoughtful people,
caring is considered a “touchy-feely” hindrance to prepar-
ing workers who can win the game of global competition.
Each day 30,000 children die from poverty. Half of our
planet — that’s three billion people — lives on less than two
dollars a day. Recently we celebrated our new millennium,
yet the century we left behind was easily the bloodiest and
most horrific in human history. We say we must teach about
the Holocaust so that we never forget, yet since the defeat
of the Nazis we have witnessed at least half a dozen more
genocides. It certainly seems the more “civilized” we be-
come as a species, the more brutal we become as people.
What does the 21st century hold in store for us? Will we
survive? What are schools doing to improve our chances?
Environmental literacy. In 2001 Ari Fleischer, President
Bush’s press secretary at the time, held a White House press
briefing on American energy issues that included the follow-
ing exchange with a reporter:
Question: Is one of the problems with this, and
the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the
President believe that, given the amount of energy
Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds
any other citizen in any other country in the world,
does the President believe we need to correct our
lifestyles to address the energy problem?
Mr. Fleischer: That’s a big no. The President be-
lieves that it’s an American way of life, and that it
should be the goal of policy makers to protect the
American way of life. The American way of life is a
blessed one.21
If there is anything that should be ripe for critical inquiry
inside our schools, it is the “American way of life” and its
effect on the environment. School should be the primary
place we engage children in a collective critique of how we
live. There are serious global consequences to our “blessed”
American way of life. Yet once again, rather than helping chil-
Schools must do more than teach a love
for reading; they must reduce or eliminate
practices that teach children that reading
is a laborious “school thing.” I have never
met a child who ran home to crack open
The Rise of the American Nation.
654 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
dren to analyze how we live, our schools actually perpetu-
ate — even advocate — the unquestioned habits of our daily
lives.
An honest study of the environment would address one
of the gravest dangers to our planet: rampant consumer-
ism. Rather than teaching consumerism as simply the good
engine of economic growth, we should engage children in
inquiry about how we spend and what we buy — both in-
dividually and collectively — and the moral and ecological
implications of our actions.
Schools also must get kids outside. I don’t mean just at
recess. I mean that we must take children outside to experi-
ence nature. Schools should accept the responsibility of hav-
ing their students walk through forests, look at clouds, feel
the desert, wade through streams, canoe rivers, and witness
our astonishing ecosystems. The best field trip I took my
students on was to see the sunrise. My school was just a
20-minute walk away from Lake Michigan, and about a hun-
dred of us — kids, teachers, some parents, a few dogs —
gathered at school at 5:30 on a dark, crisp morning to walk
to the beach. It was extraordinary watching the sun lift over
the horizon.
Multicultural community. It is essential for our schools
to accept their role in healing our cultural divides. Race,
culture, and economic class are some of the most dominant
themes in the story of our nation, and they fuel violence,
perpetuate inequality, and tear our social fabric.
Across our country there are schools that make multicul-
tural education a priority. But what makes a curriculum mul-
ticultural? We must move far beyond simplistic notions of
teaching about holidays and food. Teaching children to ap-
preciate cultural differences is important, but that alone will
never help us to embrace diversity. Any curriculum that does
not study prejudice in all its forms — at the individual, sys-
temic, national, and global levels — and that does not ex-
plicitly teach to end intolerance is not a multicultural cur-
riculum.
Social responsibility. Sheldon Berman defines social re-
sponsibility as “the personal investment in the well-being
of others and the planet.”22 This notion is connected to teach-
ing caring and empathy. To accept stewardship of the planet
and its ecosystems, as well as a personal responsibility to-
ward all peoples of the planet, we must live for the common
good over our individual gain. Needless to say, this orien-
tation is usually the opposite of the American way of life,
which is dominated by this axiom: Who dies with the most
toys wins. Social responsibility means understanding that
a democracy is not just about our rights but equally about
our responsibilities.
While teaching social responsibility is the job of all teach-
ers, it is the direct duty of social studies teachers. Unfortu-
nately, perhaps more than any other school subject, the so-
cial studies are dominated by textbooks, which do an out-
standing job of teaching students that studying history, de-
mocracy, citizenship, our Constitution, and the world and
its peoples is boring and irrelevant.
Nearly half a century ago Shirley Engle published his
seminal article, “Decision Making: The Heart of Social Studies
Instruction,” which condemned textbook- and rote-mem-
orization-driven social studies and advocated a curriculum
that prepares children to participate in the everyday deci-
sion making necessary to a healthy democracy.23 Little has
changed in our schools in the intervening years.
From the day we are born, we learn to conform to social
norms. We are inundated with conscious and subconscious
expectations for how we should behave and what we should
believe. Certainly, some of these expectations are neces-
sary to live in a civilized society. But many become unques-
tioned truths, dictating what is “normal” and “correct.”
School should be the place where all citizens are helped
to question assumptions. Teaching for social responsibility
is about providing children with the skills, knowledge, and
dispositions to critique today’s society and to work for a bet-
ter world. But how can we inspire students to work for a
better world without schools that help children to honestly
MAY 2007 655
investigate the world and the country we have?
Peace and nonviolence. Violence is as American as ap-
ple pie. In 2005 there were nearly 1.4 million violent crimes
in our nation, including 16,700 murders, 863,000 aggravat-
ed assaults, 417,000 robberies, 94,000 reported rapes, and
64,000 acts of arson.24 The U.S. has more than two million
of its citizens in prison, a much higher percentage than in
any other democracy. There is no democracy in the world as
violent as ours. Yet our curricula pretend we live in Shangri-
la. Open an eighth-grade social studies textbook, and you
will not see one word about crime, violence, or our crimi-
nal justice crisis. A more peaceful nation will not happen
by magic. If we want caring and less violent communities,
then our schools must teach for caring and nonviolence.
Our planet is ravaged by war. And though it can seem
that we are powerless to alleviate this condition, our schools
can do a great deal. By awakening children’s consciousness
to the brutal realities and psychologies of war, we can en-
courage them to make more peaceful decisions, arouse their
compassion for the victims of war, and help them to make
connections between personal actions and world violence.
We can also help them to understand propaganda and hy-
pocrisy. Yet once again our social studies textbooks are silent.
In the 956-page eighth-grade textbook Creating America,
“war” is mentioned throughout the index, yet the word
“peace” is entirely absent, and “pacifist” is listed just once
— in reference to the Quakers during the American Revo-
lution.25 We will never create a more harmonious world by
ignoring the realities of violence and war and silencing those
who have worked for peace throughout history.
Media literacy. The typical American 8- to 18-year-old
interacts with media for six hours 21 minutes per day. For
a quarter of that time, he or she is media multitasking (e.g.,
on the Internet while listening to music), which increases
the daily media time to eight hours 33 minutes. Of that time,
about three hours is spent watching TV, which increases
to four hours a day when DVDs, videos, and recorded shows
are included. The typical American youth spends an aver-
age of one hour 44 minutes listening to the radio, CDs, tapes,
and MP3 players and is on a computer for a little more than
an hour (not including schoolwork). He or she plays video
games for about 50 minutes a day. American children spend
more time each week with media than they do in school.26
In one year an American child will see 20,000 television
commercials. By the time American children are 18 years old,
they will have seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV, includ-
ing 16,000 murders. By the time they are 70, they will have
spent seven to 10 years watching television.27 American
argosyu.edu1.800.377.0617
Argosy University
Two First National Plaza
20 South Clark Street, 28th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY LOCATIONS: ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | DENVER | HAWAI‘I | NASHVILLE
ORANGE COUNTY (Santa Ana) | PHOENIX | SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (Point Richmond) | SARASOTA
SCHAUMBURG | SEATTLE | TAMPA | TWIN CITIES (Eagan) | WASHINGTON DC (Arlington)
APPROVED DEGREE SITES: INLAND EMPIRE (San Bernardino) | SAN DIEGO | SANTA MONICA
Argosy University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association (NCA) (30 North LaSalle Street,
Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60602, 1.800.621.7440, www.ncahlc.org).
Argosy University/Washington DC is certified to operate by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (James Monroe Building, 101 North
14th Street, Richmond, VA 23219, 1.804.225.2600).
Program names vary by location. Not all programs are available at every location.
©2007 by Argosy University ® 501127 – 3/07
At Argosy University, the best
teachers never stop learning.
At Argosy University we have been helping working professionals succeed for over
30 years. Small class sizes, taught by leading professionals ensure quality and
personalized attention. Our graduate degree programs in
education include:
• MAEd, EdS, and EdD in Educational Leadership
• MAEd, EdS, and EdD in Instructional Leadership
501127 Phi Delta Kappan Ad.April.qxd 3/20/07 4:07 PM Page 1
656 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
adults watch nearly three hours of television a day and get
the majority of their “news” from TV.
Our schools operate as if none of the above were hap-
pening. Though media have overwhelming power in every
aspect of our lives (including our obesity epidemic), I rare-
ly meet a child or an adolescent who has participated in any
in-depth study of media in school.
Media literacy gives us the skills and knowledge we need
to critique what we see and hear. To ignore the media in our
schools is to perpetuate an ignorant and disempowered citi-
zenry.
Global awareness. How much do Americans know about
the rest of the world? How much do Americans care about
the rest of the world? Here’s an example from my son’s school
district. Out of the 13 years of the Chicago Public Schools’
required K-12 social studies curriculum, only two years have
any focus on global knowledge. And in one of those years
(sixth grade), that global knowledge is limited almost en-
tirely to ancient history.28 That leaves just one year of high
school — 180 days out of 13 years in school — for my son
to explore the life and people and problems in the entire
rest of the world. Should we be surprised that in a recent
study 63% of Americans aged 18 to 24 could not find Iraq
on a map, and this was after three years of war and 2,400
American soldiers killed?29 There is only one solution to
this crime of rampant educational nationalism. Every school
year in every grade should have a global curriculum.
How can our citizens possibly make decisions on Amer-
ican foreign policies — from economic aid to human rights,
from such health crises as AIDS in Africa to the most seri-
ous decision of all, going to war — if they have so little un-
derstanding of the world? The United States is seen as the
“leader of the free world,” wielding a mighty military pres-
ence and controlling unimaginable wealth. With that power
comes responsibility for us, “the people,” to be involved.
And of course, our daily decisions — the cars we drive, the
food we eat, the stuff we buy — have a direct impact on the
health and well-being of complete strangers across the
oceans.
Creativity and imagination. Our schools do a negligi-
ble job in the visual, musical, and dramatic arts. But cre-
ativity and imagination are not just about art and aesthet-
ics. For Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, “Creativity” (with a “big
C”) is about using innovative thinking that nurtures cultur-
al change. While some schools encourage their students to
“be creative,” most schools do little, if anything at all, to
help children think creatively. Based on his interviews
with people who are considered to have some of the best
minds, Csikszentmihalyi writes:
It is quite strange how little effect school — even high
school — seems to have had on the lives of creative
people. Often one senses that, if anything, school
threatened to extinguish the interest and curiosity
that the child had discovered outside its walls.30
Elliot Eisner, one of our grand advocates for the arts in
school, connects the arts to inquiry and lifelong learning:
The sense of vitality and the surge of emotion we
feel when touched by one of the arts can also be se-
cured in the ideas we explore with students, in the
challenges we encounter in doing critical inquiry,
and in the appetite for learning we stimulate. In the
long run, these are the satisfactions that matter most
because they are the only ones that ensure, if it can
be ensured at all, that what we teach students will
want to pursue voluntarily after the artificial incen-
tives so ubiquitous in our schools are long forgot-
ten.31
Maxine Greene sees the arts as encouraging schools to
teach social imagination, which she defines as “the ca-
pacity to invent visions of what should be and what might
be in our deficient society, on the streets where we live, and
in our schools.”32 By helping children develop social imagi-
nation, we give them the skills, civic courage, and boldness
to envision a better world. If we want better communities
— from the local to the global — then we must help children
to imagine a better world so that we can act together to make
that world a reality.
Money, family, food, and happiness. There are few things
more central to our daily lives than money, family, and food.
Yet our schools pretty much ignore all of them. Nel Noddings
writes, “Why do we insist on teaching all children algebra
and teach them almost nothing about what it means to make
a home?”33 Sure, units on “family” and “money” are taught
in the early grades, but when do children study any of them
in depth? When do they investigate them from critical and
By helping children develop social
imagination, we give them the skills,
civic courage, and boldness to envision
a better world. If we want better
communities — from the local to the
global — then we must help children to
imagine a better world so that we can
act together to make that world a reality.
MAY 2007 657
moral perspectives? To truly educate children on these is-
sues would require exploring such questions as: Why do
some people and countries have so much money and oth-
ers have so little? Do those with a lot of money have any
responsibility to those in poverty? What is life like for the
poor? How much money will make me happy? What does
“family” mean? Why do the people we love often cause us
frustration? Where does our food come from? Why does our
country eat so much unhealthy food? How has industrial
farming changed our nation?
Why don’t our schools engage children in investigating
and debating questions about our present and future well-
being? Imagine a teacher first having her students write about
and debate such questions and then having them interview
senior citizens or genocide survivors or war veterans on these
same issues. Jonathan Cohen writes that an essential factor
in our well-being and happiness is “finding a sense of mean-
ing and purpose in life.”34 An aim our schools should em-
brace is to help our children articulate the meanings of
their lives.
SCHOOLING FOR HUMAN BEINGS
It can be overwhelming to see how much indispensa-
ble knowledge is not part of going to school for the vast
majority of American children. Yet my list is far from com-
plete. There is much that we can add to it.
Today schools present an even greater insult to our chil-
dren. Many of our schools do not allow children to play.
All across our country, recess has become endangered. This
happens far more often in our urban schools. Only 18% of
Chicago Public Schools have daily scheduled recess, and
only 6% of those schools have recess for at least 20 min-
utes.35 Why, in a six- to seven-hour day, do so many schools
deny children a chance to relax and play? Because there is
no play in the world of work!
As I look at our schools today, I don’t think we have any
right to call what goes on there “education.” If we were
honest, it would be called “work training.” If we want the
right to claim that we are educating children, then we must
honor them as unique people and make dramatic changes
to our curricula.
I am not naive about the political realities of actually
teaching much of the content I advocate here. Many peo-
ple — including some of my education students — say we
can’t teach this content because it’s “too political” or be-
cause “schools can’t teach morals.” But our current school
curricula are not somehow magically apolitical and morally
neutral. How can a nationwide system of education that un-
questioningly adopts economic purposes for schooling not
be up to its neck in political and moral beliefs?
All knowledge inherently has moral and political dimen-
sions because someone has to choose what will be official
school knowledge. The moment a teacher, school board,
or textbook publisher chooses knowledge to teach and to
test, a political and moral decision has been made. Having
eighth-graders debate genetic engineering or gay marriage
is no more value-laden than having a spelling bee — because
by choosing to have a spelling bee, we are choosing not to
use that time to teach about peace or global poverty.
Given that our schools have a finite amount of time and
that our teachers are already stressed with overstuffed cur-
ricula, how are we supposed to find the time to teach the
content I’m advocating? There are at least three ways to
make this content an important part of school. First, teach-
ers can teach this knowledge through the content and dis-
ciplines they are already teaching. By teaching about cul-
tural understanding in social studies and global awareness
through young adult literature, we will not only bring greater
and more authentic purposes to those disciplines, but we
will be making them infinitely more interesting to students.
For example, when students learn to make graphs, they could
graph real data about crime and the U.S. prison system, read
multiple texts, engage in debate, and perhaps take some form
of civic action. By combining disciplines into integrated in-
quiry-based units, we can help children make dynamic con-
nections across the curriculum.
Second, this content can be taught as separate inquiry-
658 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
based units. This means making choices. It means eliminat-
ing some of the existing curriculum. This wouldn’t be diffi-
cult; there is plenty filling our children’s school day that is
superficial, damaging to the human spirit, and simply un-
necessary. By opening up just one hour a day, we can rotate
through teacher-created inquiry units on the environment,
media, peace, multicultural community, and so on. Imagine
entire schools having exhibitions and presentations at the
end of each quarter to share their students’ intellectual and
creative work on such important issues.
And third, schools can create entirely new classes to
teach this content. Why do schools almost universally limit
classes to the standardized math and history and language
arts? Surely we can be more creative. How about classes
called “What Is Justice?” or “Who Am I?” or “Media and
Power”? And how about having electives throughout K-12
schooling? Schools could give students choices among a
variety of electives each quarter, such as yoga or documentary
photography. Of course, some schools already have classes
such as these, but they usually are after school when they
should be school. As Stephen Thornton writes, “If we take
seriously the claim that education is supposed to prepare
each young person to realize his or her own potentiality,
given their different interests, aptitudes, and aspirations, how
can a standardized curriculum be justified?”36
So why go to school? We can no longer tinker with a
broken and inhuman paradigm of schooling. We must stop
schooling our children as if they were products and reclaim
our schools as sacred places for human beings. We must
rethink our classrooms as vibrant spaces that awaken con-
sciousness to the world, open minds to the problems of our
human condition, inspire wonder, and help people to lead
personally fulfilling lives. If our democracy is to thrive, our
schools must change into these exciting spaces. Otherwise,
we will not be a democracy “of the people,” but a corporate
nation of workers, TV viewers, and shoppers. As professional
educators, it is our responsibility to challenge our curricula
and to create schools that are personally and socially trans-
formative. That’s why we should go to school.
1. National Center for Education Statistics, “National Assessment of Adult
Literacy,” available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section2/
indicator20.asp. See also Bureau of Labor Statistics, “American Time Use
Survey,” available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus .
2. John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1984), p. 242.
3. John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier, 1938), p. 49.
4. John Kornfeld and Jesse Goodman, “Melting the Glaze: Exploring Stu-
dent Responses to Liberatory Social Studies,” Theory Into Practice, vol.
37, 1998, p. 309.
5. Nel Noddings, Happiness and Education (New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2003), p. 4.
6. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), available
at www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.
7. Tamar Lewin, “As Math Scores Lag, a New Push for the Basics,” New
York Times, 14 November 2006, pp. A-1, A-22.
8. Claudia Wallis and Sonja Steptoe, “How to Bring Our Schools Out of
the 20th Century,” Time, 18 December 2006, pp. 50-56.
9. Noddings, p. 4.
10. Data available at www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_
Voting_72-04 and at www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS
Midterm06 .
11. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and En-
gagement, “Youth Civic Engagement,” available at www.civicyouth.org/
research/products/fact_sheets_outside2.htm.
12. David T. Z. Mindich, Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don’t
Follow the News (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
13. Zogby International, available at www.zogby.com/templates/printsb.
cfm?id=13498.
14. Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984). Frances Moore Lappe calls it “living democracy.” John Dewey
called it “creative democracy.” You can read his essay “Creative Democ-
racy — The Task Before Us” at www.beloit.edu/~pbk/dewey.html.
15. Susan Adler, “Creating Public Spaces in the Social Studies Classroom,”
Social Education, February 2001, pp. 6-7, 68-71.
16. Alex Molnar, “Are the Issues Studied in School the Most Important
Issues Facing Mankind?,” Social Education, May 1983, pp. 305-8.
17. Patrick Shannon, Text, Lies, & Videotape (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heine-
mann, 1995), p. xi.
18. David Orr, “Educating for the Environment,” Change, May 1995, p. 45.
19. Steven Wolk, A Democratic Classroom (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heine-
mann, 1998).
20. Nel Noddings, The Challenge to Care in Schools (New York: Teachers
College Press, 1992).
21. Ari Fleischer, press briefing, 7 May 2001, available at www.white
house.gov/news/briefings/20010507.html.
22. Sheldon Berman, Children’s Social Consciousness and the Develop-
ment of Social Responsibility (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1997).
23. Shirley H. Engle, “Decision Making: The Heart of Social Studies In-
struction,” Social Education, November 1960, pp. 301-6.
24. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2005,”
available at www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius.
25. Jesus Garcia et al., Creating America: A History of the United States
(Evanston, Ill.: McDougal Littell, 2005).
26. Henry K. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Generation M: Media in the Lives
of 8-18 Year-Olds,” March 2005, available at: www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia
030905pkg.cfm.
27. American Academy of Pediatrics, available at www.aap.org.
28. Chicago Public Schools, “Social Science Standards,” available at
http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Social_Science/
cas_social_science.html.
29. “Study: Geography Greek to Young Americans,” 4 May 2006, avail-
able at www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test.
30. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity (New York: HarperCollins, 1996),
p. 173.
31. Elliot Eisner, “What Can Education Learn from the Arts?,” Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, vol. 18, 2002, pp. 14-15.
32. Maxine Greene, Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the
Arts, and Social Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995), p. 5.
33. Noddings, Happiness and Education, p. 5.
34. Jonathan Cohen, “Social, Emotional, Ethical, and Academic Educa-
tion: Creating a Climate for Learning, Participation in Democracy, and
Well-Being,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 76, 2006, pp. 201-37.
35. Elizabeth Duffrin, “Survey: Recess, Gym Shortchanged,” Catalyst,
October 2005, available at www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?
item=1775&cat=30.
36. Stephen J. Thornton, “Forum: What Should Schools Teach? What
Should All High School Students Learn?,” Journal of Curriculum and Su-
pervision, vol. 16, 2001, p. 131. K
Dewey, J. (1907). The School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chapter 1: The School and Social Progress
We are apt to look at the school from an individualistic standpoint, as something between teacher and pupil, or between teacher and parent. That which interests us most is naturally the progress made by the individual child of our acquaintance, his normal physical development, his advance in ability to read, write, and figure, his growth in the knowledge of geography and history, improvement in manners, habits of promptness, order, and industry — it is from such standards as these that we judge the work of the school. And rightly so. Yet the range of the outlook needs to be enlarged. What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy. All that society has accomplished for itself is put, through the agency of the school, at the disposal of its future members. All its better thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through the new possibilities thus opened to its future self. Here individualism and socialism are at one. Only by being true to the full growth of all the individuals who make it up, can society by any chance be true to itself. And in the self-direction thus given, nothing counts as much as the school, for, as Horace Mann said, “Where anything is growing, one former is worth a thousand re-formers.”
Whenever we have in mind the discussion of a new movement in education, it is especially necessary to take the broader, or social view. Otherwise, changes in the school institution and tradition will be looked at as the arbitrary inventions of particular teachers; at the worst transitory fads, and at the best merely improvements in certain details — and this is the plane upon which it is too customary to consider school changes. It is as rational to conceive of the locomotive or the telegraph as personal devices. The modification going on in the method and curriculum of education is as much a product of the changed social situation, and as much an effort to meet the needs of the new society that is forming, as are changes in modes of industry and commerce.
It is to this, then, that I especially ask your attention: the effort to conceive what roughly may be termed the “New Education” in the light of larger changes in society. Can we connect this “New Education” with the general march of events? If we can, it will lose its isolated character, and will cease to be an affair which proceeds only from the over-ingenious minds of pedagogues dealing with particular pupils. It will appear as part and parcel of the whole social evolution, and, in its more general features at least, as inevitable. Let us then ask after the main aspects of the social movement; and afterwards turn to the school to find what witness it gives of effort to put itself in line. And since it is quite impossible to cover the whole ground, I shall for the most part confine myself to one typical thing in the modern school movement — that which passes under the name of manual training, hoping if the relation of that to changed social conditions appears, we shall be ready to concede the point as well regarding other educational innovations.
I make no apology for not dwelling at length upon the social changes in question. Those I shall mention are writ so large that he who runs may read. The change that comes first to mind, the one that overshadows and even controls all others, is the industrial one — the application of science resulting in the great inventions that have utilized the forces of nature on a vast and inexpensive scale: the growth of a world-wide market as the object of production, of vast manufacturing centers to supply this market, of cheap and rapid means of communication and distribution between all its parts. Even as to its feebler beginnings, this change is not much more than a century old; in many of its most important aspects it falls within the short span of those now living. One can hardly believe there has been a revolution in all history so rapid, so extensive, so complete. Through it the face of the earth is making over, even as to its physical forms; political boundaries are wiped out and moved about, as if they were indeed only lines on a paper map; population is hurriedly gathered into cities from the ends of the earth; habits of living are altered with startling abruptness and thoroughness; the search for the truths of nature is infinitely stimulated and facilitated and their application to life made not only practicable, but commercially necessary. Even our moral and religious ideas and interests, the most conservative because the deepest-lying things in our nature, are profoundly affected. That this revolution should not affect education in other than formal and superficial fashion is inconceivable.
Back of the factory system lies the household and neighborhood system. Those of us who are here today need go back only one, two, or at most three generations, to find a time when the household was practically the center in which were carried on, or about which were clustered, all the typical forms of industrial occupation. The clothing worn was for the most part not only made in the house, but the members of the household were usually familiar with the shearing of the sheep, the carding and spinning of the wool, and the plying of the loom. Instead of pressing a button and flooding the house with electric light, the whole process of getting illumination was followed in its toilsome length, from the killing of the animal and the trying of fat, to the making of wicks and dipping of candles. The supply of flour, of lumber, of foods, of building materials, of household furniture, even of metal ware, of nails, hinges, hammers, etc., was in the immediate neighborhood, in shops which were constantly open to inspection and often centers of neighborhood congregation. The entire industrial process stood revealed, from the production on the farm of the raw materials, till the finished article was actually put to use. Not only this, but practically every member of the household had his own share in the work. The children, as they gained in strength and capacity, were gradually initiated into the mysteries of the several processes. It was a matter of immediate and personal concern, even to the point of actual participation.
We cannot overlook the factors of discipline and of character-building involved in this: training in habits of order and of industry, and in the idea of responsibility, of obligation to do something, to produce something, in the world. There was always something which really needed to be done, and a real necessity that each member of the household should do his own part faithfully and in cooperation with others. Personalities which became effective in action were bred and tested in the medium of action. Again, we cannot overlook the importance for educational purposes of the close and intimate acquaintance got with nature at first hand, with real things and materials, with the actual processes of their manipulation, and the knowledge of their social necessities and uses. In all this there was continual training of observation, of ingenuity, constructive imagination, of logical thought, and of the sense of reality acquired through first-hand contact with actualities. The educative forces of the domestic spinning and weaving, of the saw-mill, the gristmill, the cooper shop, and the blacksmith forge, were continuously operative.
No number of object-lessons, got up as object-lessons for the sake of giving information, can afford even the shadow of a substitute for acquaintance with the plants and animals of the farm and garden, acquired through actual living among them and caring for them. No training of sense-organs in school, introduced for the sake of training, can begin to compete with the alertness and fullness of sense-life that comes through daily intimacy and interest in familiar occupations. Verbal memory can be trained in committing tasks, a certain discipline of the reasoning powers can be acquired through lessons in science and mathematics; but, after all, this is somewhat remote and shadowy compared with the training of attention and of judgment that is acquired in having to do things with a real motive behind and a real outcome ahead. At present, concentration of industry and division of labor have practically eliminated household and neighborhood occupations — at least for educational purposes. But it is useless to bemoan the departure of the good old days of children’s modesty, reverence, and implicit obedience, if we expect merely by bemoaning and by exhortation to bring them back. It is radical conditions which have changed, and only an equally radical change in education suffices. We must recognize our compensations — the increase in toleration, in breadth of social judgment, the larger acquaintance with human nature, the sharpened alertness in reading signs of character and interpreting social situations, greater accuracy of adaptation to differing personalities, contact with greater commercial activities. These considerations mean much to the city-bred child of today. Yet there is a real problem: how shall we retain these advantages, and yet introduce into the school something representing the other side of life — occupations which exact personal responsibilities and which train the child with relation to the physical realities of life?
When we turn to the school, we find that one of the most striking tendencies at present is toward the introduction of so-called manual training, shop-work, and the household arts — sewing and cooking.
This has not been done “on purpose,” with a full consciousness that the school must now supply that factor of training formerly taken care of in the home, but rather by instinct, by experimenting and finding that such work takes a vital hold of pupils and gives them something which was not to be got in any other way. Consciousness of its real import is still so weak that the work is often done in a half-hearted, confused, and unrelated way. The reasons assigned to justify it are painfully inadequate or sometimes even positively wrong.
If we were to cross-examine even those who are most favorably disposed to the introduction of this work into our school system, we should, I imagine, generally find the main reasons to be that such work engages the full spontaneous interest and attention of the children. It keeps them alert and active, instead of passive and receptive, it makes them more useful, more capable, and hence more inclined to be helpful at home; it prepares them to some extent for the practical duties of later life — the girls to be more efficient house managers, if not actually cooks and seamstresses; the boys (were our educational system only adequately rounded out into trade schools) for their future vocations. I do not underestimate the worth of these reasons. Of those indicated by the changed attitude of the children I shall indeed have something to say in my next talk, when speaking directly of the relationship of the school to the child. But the point of view is, upon the whole, unnecessarily narrow. We must conceive of work in wood and metal, of weaving, sewing, and cooking, as methods of life not as distinct studies.
We must conceive of them in their social significance, as types of the processes by which society keeps itself going, as agencies for bringing home to the child some of the primal necessities of community life, and as ways in which these needs have been met by the growing insight and ingenuity of man; in short, as instrumentalities through which the school itself shall be made a genuine form of active community life, instead of a place set apart in which to learn lessons.
A society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims. The common needs and aims demand a growing interchange of thought and growing unity of sympathetic feeling. The radical reason that the present school cannot organize itself as a natural social unit is because just this element of common and productive activity is absent. Upon the playground, in game and sport, social organization takes place spontaneously and inevitably. There is something to do, some activity to be carried on, requiring natural divisions of labor, selection of leaders and followers, mutual cooperation and emulation. In the schoolroom the motive and the cement of social organization are alike wanting. Upon the ethical side, the tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting.
The difference that appears when occupations are made the articulating centers of school life is not easy to describe in words; it is a difference in motive, of spirit and atmosphere. As one enters a busy kitchen in which a group of children are actively engaged in the preparation of food, the psychological difference, the change from more or less passive and inert recipiency and restraint to one of buoyant outgoing energy, is so obvious as fairly to strike one in the face. Indeed, to those whose image of the school is rigidly set the change is sure to give a shock. But the change in the social attitude is equally marked. The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat. Indeed, almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of that term — a comparison of results in the recitation or in the examination to see which child has succeeded in getting ahead of others in storing up, in accumulating the maximum of information. So thoroughly is this the prevalent atmosphere that for one child to help another in his task has become a school crime. Where the school work consists in simply learning lessons, mutual assistance, instead of teeing the most natural form of cooperation and association, becomes a clandestine effort to relieve one’s neighbor of his proper duties. Where active work is going on all this is changed. Helping others, instead of being a form of charity which impoverishes the recipient, is simply an aid in setting free the powers and furthering the impulse of the one helped. A spirit of free communication, of interchange of ideas, suggestions, results, both successes and failures of previous experiences, becomes the dominating note of the recitation. So far as emulation enters in, it is in the comparison of individuals, not with regard to the quantity of information personally absorbed, but with reference to the quality of work done — the genuine community standard of value. In an informal but all the more pervasive way, the school life organizes itself on a social basis.
Within this organization is found the principle of school discipline or order. Of course, order is simply a thing which is relative to an end. If you have the end in view of forty or fifty children learning certain set lessons, to be recited to a teacher, your discipline must be devoted to securing that result. But if the end in view is the development of a spirit of social cooperation and community life, discipline must grow out of and be relative to this. There is little order of one sort where things are in process of construction; there is a certain disorder in any busy workshop; there is not silence; persons are not engaged in maintaining certain fixed physical postures; their arms are not folded; they are not holding their books thus and so. They are doing a variety of things, and there is the confusion, the bustle, that results from activity. But out of occupation, out of doing things that are to produce results, and out of doing these in a social and cooperative way, there is born a discipline of its own kind and pet Our whole conception of school discipline changes when we get this point of view. In critical moments we all realize that the only discipline that stands by us, the only training that becomes intuition, is that got through life itself. That we learn from experience, and from books or the sayings of others only as they are related to experience, are not mere phrases. But the school has been so set apart, so isolated from the ordinary conditions and motives of life’ that the place where children are sent for discipline is the one place in the world where it is most difficult to get experience — the mother of all discipline worth the name. It is only where a narrow and fixed image of traditional school discipline dominates, that one is in any danger of overlooking that deeper and infinitely wider discipline that comes from having a part to do in constructive work, in contributing to a result which, social in spirit, is none the less obvious and tangible in form — and hence in a form with reference to which responsibility may be exacted and accurate judgment passed.
The great thing to keep in mind, then, regarding the introduction into the school of various forms of active occupation, is that through them the entire spirit of the school is renewed. It has a chance to affiliate itself with life, to become the child’s habitat, where he learns through directed living; instead of being only a place to learn lessons having an abstract and remote reference to some possible living to be done in the future. It gets a chance to be a miniature community, an embryonic society. This is the fundamental fact, and from this arise continuous and orderly sources of instruction. Under the industrial regime described, the child, after all, shared in the work, not for the sake of the sharing, but for the sake of the product. The educational results secured were real, yet incidental and dependent. But in the school the typical occupations followed are freed from all economic stress. The aim is not the economic value of the products, but the development of social power and insight. It is this liberation from narrow utilities, this openness to the possibilities of the human spirit that makes these practical activities in the school allies of art and centers of science and history.
The unity of all the sciences is found in geography. The significance of geography is that it presents the earth as the enduring home of the occupations of man. The world without its relationship to human activity is less than a world. Human industry and achievement, apart from their roots in the earth, are not even a sentiment, hardly a name. The earth is the final source of all man’s food. lt is his continual shelter and protection, the raw material of all his activities, and the home to whose humanizing and idealizing all his achievement returns. It is the great field, the great mine, the great source of the energies of heat, light, and electricity; the great scene of ocean, stream, mountain, and plain, of which all our agriculture and mining and lumbering, all our manufacturing and distributing agencies, are but the partial elements and factors. It is through occupations determined by this environment that mankind has made its historical and political progress. It is through these occupations that the intellectual and emotional interpretation of nature has been developed. It is through what we do in and with the world that we read its meaning and measure its value.
In educational terms, this means that these occupations in the school shall not be mere practical devices or modes of routine employment, the gaining of better technical skill as cooks, seamstresses, or carpenters, but active centers of scientific insight into natural materials and processes, points of departure whence children shall be led out into a realization of the historic development of man. The actual significance of this can be told better through one illustration taken from actual school work than by general discourse.
There is nothing which strikes more oddly upon the average intelligent visitor than to see boys as well as girls of ten, twelve, and thirteen years of age engaged in sewing and weaving. If we look at this from the standpoint of preparation of the boys for sewing on buttons and making patches, we get a narrow and utilitarian conception — a basis that hardly justifies giving prominence to this sort of work in the school. But if we look at it from another side, we find that this work gives the point of departure from which the child can trace and follow the progress of mankind in history, getting an insight also into the materials used and the mechanical principles involved. In connection with these occupations, the historic development of man is recapitulated. for example, the children arc first given the raw material — the flax, the cotton plant, the wool as it comes from the back of the sheep (if we could take them to the place where the sheep are sheared, so much the better). Then a study is made of these materials from the standpoint of their adaptation to the uses to which they may be put. For instance, a comparison of the cotton fiber with wool fiber is made. I did not know until the children told me, that the reason for the late development of the cotton industry as compared with the woolen is, that the cotton fiber is so very difficult to free by hand from the seeds. The children in one group worked thirty minutes freeing cotton fibers from the boll and seeds, and succeeded in getting out less than one ounce. They could easily believe that one person could only gin one pound a day by hand, and could understand why their ancestors wore woolen instead of cotton clothing. Among other things discovered as affecting their relative utilities, was the shortness of the cotton fiber as compared with that of wool, the former being one-tenth of an inch in length, while that of the latter is an inch in length; also that the fibers of cotton are smooth and do not cling together, while the wool has a certain roughness which makes the fibers stick, thus assisting the spinning. The children worked this out for themselves with the actual material, aided by questions and suggestions from the teacher.
They then followed the processes necessary for working the fibers up into cloth. They re-invented the first frame for carding the wool — a couple of boards with sharp pins in them for scratching it out. They re-devised the simplest process for spinning the wool — a pierced stone or some other weight through which the wool is passed, and which as it is twirled draws out the fiber; next the top, which was spun on the floor, while the children kept the wool in their hands until it was gradually drawn out and wound upon it. Then the children are introduced to the invention next in historic order, working it out experimentally, thus seeing its necessity, and tracing its effects, not only upon that particular industry, but upon modes of social life — in this way passing in review the entire process up to the present complete loom, and all that goes with the application of science in the use of our present available powers. I need not speak of the science involved in this — the study of the fibers, of geographical features, the conditions under which raw materials are grown, the great centers of manufacture and distribution, the physics involved in the machinery of production; nor, again, of the historical side — the influence which these inventions have had upon humanity. You can concentrate the history of all mankind into the evolution of the flax, cotton, and wool fibers into clothing. I do not mean that this is the only, or the best, center. But it is true that certain very real and important avenues to the consideration of the history of the race are thus opened — that the mind is introduced to much more fundamental and controlling influences than usually appear in the political and chronological records that pass for history.
Now, what is true of this one instance of fibers used in fabrics (and, of course, I have only spoken of one or two elementary phases of that) is true in its measure of every material used in every occupation, and of the processes employed. The occupation supplies the child with a genuine motive; it gives him experience at first hand ; it brings him into contact with realities. It does all this, but in addition it is liberalized throughout by translation into its historic values and scientific equivalencies. With the growth of the child’s mind in power and knowledge it ceases to be a pleasant occupation merely, and becomes more and more a medium, an instrument, an organ — and is thereby transformed.
This, in turn, has its bearing upon the teaching of science. Under present conditions, all activity, to be successful, has to be directed somewhere and somehow by the scientific expert — it is a ease of applied science. This connection should determine its place in education. It is not only that the occupations, the so-called manual or industrial work in the school, give the opportunity for the introduction of science which illuminates them, which makes them material, freighted with meaning, instead of being mere devices of hand and eye; but that the scientific insight thus gained becomes an indispensable instrument of free and active participation in modern social life. Plato somewhere speaks of the slave as one who in his actions does not express his own ideas, but those of some other man. It is our social problem now, even more urgent than in the time of Plato, that method, purpose, understanding, shall exist in the consciousness of the one who does the work, that his activity shall have meaning to himself.
When occupations in the school are conceived in this broad and generous way, I can only stand lost in wonder at the objections so often heard, that such occupations are out of place in the school because they are materialistic, utilitarian, or even menial in their tendency. It sometimes seems to me that those who make these objections must live in quite another world. The world in which most of us live is a world in which everyone has a calling and occupation, something to do. Some are managers and others are subordinates. But the great thing for one as for the other is that each shall have had the education which enables him to see within his daily work all there is in it of large and human significance. How many of the employed are today mere appendages to the machines which they operate! This may be due in part to the machine itself, or to the regime which lays so much stress upon the products of the machine; but it is certainly due in large part to the fact that the worker has had no opportunity to develop his imagination and his . sympathetic insight as to the social and scientific values found in his work. At present, the impulses which lie at the basis of the industrial system are either practically neglected or positively distorted during the school period. Until the instincts of construction and production are systematically laid hold of in the years of childhood and youth, until they are trained in social directions, enriched by historical interpretation, controlled and illuminated by scientific methods, we certainly are in no position even to locate the source of our economic evils, much less to deal with them effectively.
If we go back a few centuries, we find a practical monopoly of learning. The term possession of learning as, indeed, a happy one. Learning was a class matter. This was a necessary result of social conditions. There were not in existence any means by which the multitude could possibly have access to intellectual resources. These were stored up and hidden away in manuscripts. Of these there were at best only a few, and it required long and toilsome preparation to be able to do anything with them. A high-priesthood of learning, which guarded the treasury of truth and which doled it out to the masses under severe restrictions, was the inevitable expression of these conditions. But, as a direct result of the industrial revolution of which we have been speaking, this has been changed. Printing was invented; it was made commercial. Books, magazines, papers were multiplied and cheapened. As a result of the locomotive and telegraph, frequent, rapid, and cheap intercommunication by mails and electricity was called into being. Travel has been rendered easy; freedom of movement, with its accompanying exchange of ideas, indefinitely facilitated. The result has been an intellectual revolution. Learning has been put into circulation. While there still is, and probably always will be, a particular class having the special business of inquiry in hand, a distinctively learned class is henceforth out of the question. It is an anachronism. Knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied. It is actively moving in all the currents of society itself.
It is easy to see that this revolution, as regards the materials of knowledge, carries with it a marked change in the attitude of the individual. Stimuli of an intellectual sort pour in upon us in all kinds of ways. The merely intellectual life, the life of scholarship and of learning, thus gets a very altered value. Academic and scholastic, instead of being titles of honor, are becoming terms of reproach.
But all this means a necessary change in the attitude of the school, one of which we are as yet far from realizing the full force. Our school methods, and to a very considerable extent our curriculum, are inherited from the period when learning and command of certain symbols, affording as they did the only access to learning, were all-important. The ideals of this period are still largely in control, even where the outward methods and studies have been changed. We sometimes hear the introduction of manual training, art and science into the elementary, and even the secondary schools, deprecated on the ground that they tend toward the production of specialists — that they detract from our present scheme of generous, liberal culture. The point of this objection would be ludicrous if it were not often so effective as to make it tragic. It is our present education which is highly specialized, one-sided and narrow. It is an education dominated almost entirely by the mediaeval conception of learning. It is something which appeals for the most part simply to the intellectual aspect of our natures, our desire to learn, to accumulate information, and to get control of the symbols of learning; not to our impulses and tendencies to make, to do, to create, to produce, whether in the form of utility or of art. The very fact that manual training, art and science are objected to as technical, as tending toward mere specialism, is of itself as good testimony as could be offered to the specialized aim which controls current education. Unless education had been virtually identified with the exclusively intellectual pursuits, with learning as such, all these materials and methods would be welcome, would be greeted with the utmost hospitality.
While training for the profession of learning is regarded as the type of culture, as a liberal education, that of a mechanic, a musician, a lawyer, a doctor, a farmer, a merchant, or a railroad manager is regarded as purely technical and professional. The result is that which we see about us everywhere — the division into “cultured” people and “workers,” the separation of theory and practice. Hardly one per cent. of the entire school population ever attains to what we call higher education; only five per cent. to the grade of our high school; while much more than half leave on or before the completion of the fifth year of the elementary grade. The simple facts of the case are that in the great majority of human beings the distinctively intellectual interest is not dominant. They have the so-called practical impulse and disposition. In many of those in whom by nature intellectual interest is strong, social conditions prevent its adequate realization. Consequently by far the larger number of pupils leave school as soon as they have acquired the rudiments of learning, as soon as they have enough of the symbols of reading, writing, and calculating to be of practical use to them in getting a living. While our educational leaders are talking of culture, the development of personality, etc., as the end and aim of education, the great majority of those who pass under the tuition of the school regard it only as a narrowly practical tool with which to get bread and butter enough to eke out a restricted life. If we were to conceive our educational end and aim in a less exclusive way, if we were to introduce into educational processes the activities which appeal to those whose dominant interest is to do and to make, we should find the hold of the school upon its members to be more vital, more prolonged, containing more of culture.
But why should I make this labored presentation? The obvious fact is that our social life has undergone a thorough and radical change. If our education is to have any meaning for life, it must pass through an equally complete transformation. This transformation is not something to appear suddenly, to be executed in a day by conscious purpose. It is already in progress. Those modifications of our school system which often appear (even to those most actively concerned with them, to say nothing of their spectators) to be mere changes of detail, mere improvement within the school mechanism, are in reality signs and evidences of evolution. The introduction of active occupations, of nature study, of elementary science, of art, of history; the relegation of the merely symbolic and formal to a secondary position; the change in the moral school atmosphere, in the relation of pupils and teachers — of discipline; the introduction of more active, expressive, and self-directing factors — all these are not mere accidents, they are necessities of the larger social evolution. It remains but to organize all these factors, to appreciate them in their fullness of meaning, and to put the ideas and ideals involved into complete, uncompromising possession of our school system. To do this means to make each one of our schools an embryonic community life, active with types of occupations that reflect the life of the larger society, and permeated throughout with the spirit of art, history, and science. hen the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guarantee of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious.
Chapter
2
: The School and the Life of the Child
Last week I tried to put before you the relationship between the school and the larger life of the community, and the necessity for certain changes in the methods and materials of school work, that it might be better adapted to present social needs.
Today I wish to look at the matter from the other side, and consider the relationship of the school to the life and development of the children in the school. As it is difficult to connect general principles with such thoroughly concrete things as little children, I have taken the liberty of introducing a good deal of illustrative matter from the work of the University Elementary School, that in some measure you may appreciate the way in which the ideas presented work themselves out in actual practice.
Some few years ago I was looking about the school supply stores in the city, trying to find desks and chairs which seemed thoroughly suitable from all points of view — artistic, hygienic, and educational — to the needs of the children. We had a good deal of difficulty in finding what we needed, and finally one dealer, more intelligent than the rest, made this remark: “I am afraid we have not what you want. You want something at which the children may work; these are all for listening.” That tells the story of the traditional education. Just as the biologist can take a bone or two and reconstruct the whole animal, so, if we put before the mind’s eye the ordinary schoolroom, with its rows of ugly desks placed in geometrical order, crowded together so that there shall be as little moving room as possible, desks almost all of the same size, with just space enough to hold books, pencils and paper, and add a table, some chairs, the bare walls and possibly a few pictures, we can reconstruct the only educational activity that can possibly go on in such a place. It is all made “for listening” — for simply studying lessons out of a book is only another kind of listening; it marks the dependency of one mind upon another. The attitude of listening means, comparatively speaking, passivity, absorption; that there are certain ready-made materials which are there, which have been prepared by the school superintendent, the board, the teacher, and of which the child is to take in as much as possible in the least possible time.
There is very little place in the traditional schoolroom for the child to work. The workshop, the laboratory, the materials, the tools with which the child may construct, create, and actively inquire, and even the requisite space, have been for the most part lacking. The things that have to do with these processes have not even a definitely recognized place in education. They are what the educational authorities who write editorials in the daily papers generally term “fads” and “frills.” A lady told me yesterday that she had been visiting different schools trying to find one where activity on the part of the children preceded the giving of information on the part of the teacher, or where the children had some motive for demanding the information. She visited, she said, twenty-four different schools before she found her first instance. I may add that that was not in this city.
Another thing that is suggested by these schoolrooms, with their set desks, is that everything is arranged for handling as large numbers of children as possible; for dealing with children en masse, as an aggregate of units; involving, again, that they be treated passively. The moment children act they individualize themselves; they cease to be a mass, and become the intensely distinctive beings that we are acquainted with out of school. in the home, the family, on the playground, and in the neighborhood.
On the same basis is explicable the uniformity of method and curriculum. If everything is on a “listening” basis, you can have uniformity of material and method. The ear, and the book which reflects the ear, constitute the medium which is alike for all. There is next to no opportunity for adjustment to varying capacities and demands. There is a certain amount — a fixed quantity — of ready-made results and accomplishments to be acquired by all children alike in a given time. It is in response to this demand that the curriculum has been developed from the elementary school up through the college. There is just so much desirable knowledge, and there are just so many needed technical accomplishments in the world. Then comes the mathematical problem of dividing this by the six, twelve, or sixteen years of school life. Now give the children every year just the proportionate fraction of the total, and by the time they have finished they will have mastered the whole. By covering so much ground during this hour or day or week or year, everything comes out with perfect evenness at the end — provided the children have not forgotten what they have previously learned. The outcome of all this is Matthew Arnold’s report of the statement, proudly made to him by an educational authority in France, that so many thousands of children were studying at a given hour, say eleven o’clock, just such a lesson in geography; and in one of our own western cities this proud boast used to be repeated to successive visitors by its superintendent.
I may have exaggerated somewhat in order to make plain the typical points of the old education: its passivity of attitude, its mechanical massing of children, its uniformity of curriculum and method. It may be summed up by stating that the center of gravity is outside the child. It is in the teacher, the test-book anywhere and everywhere you please except in the immediate instincts and activities of the child himself. On that basis there is not much to be said about the life of the child. A good deal might be said about the studying of the child, but the school is not the place where the child lives. Now the change which is coming into our education is the shifting of the center of gravity. It is a change, a revolution, not unlike that introduced by Copernicus when the astronomical center shifted from the earth to the sun. In this case the child becomes the sun about which the appliances of education revolve; he is the center about which they are organized.
If we take an example from an ideal home, where the parent is intelligent enough to recognize what is best for the child, and is able to supply what is needed, we find the child learning through the social converse and constitution of the family. There are certain points of interest and value to him in the conversation carried on: statements are made, inquiries arise, topics are discussed, and the child continually learns. He states his experiences, his misconceptions are corrected. Again the child participates in the household occupations, and thereby gets habits of industry, order, and regard for the rights and ideas of others, and the fundamental habit of subordinating his activities to the general interest of the household. Participation in these household tasks becomes an opportunity for gaining knowledge. The ideal home would naturally have a workshop where the child could work out his constructive instincts. It would have a miniature laboratory in which his inquiries could be directed. The life of the child would extend out of doors to the garden, surrounding fields, and forests. He would have his excursions, his walks and talks, in which the larger world out of doors would open to him.
Now, if we organize and generalize all of this, we have the ideal school. There is no mystery about it, no wonderful discovery of pedagogy or educational theory. It is simply a question of doing systematically and in a large, intelligent, and competent way what for various reasons can be done in most households only in a comparatively meager and haphazard manner. In the first place, the ideal home has to be enlarged. The child must be brought into contact with more grown people and with more children in order that there may be the freest and richest social life. Moreover, the occupations and relationships of the home environment are not specially selected for the growth of the child; the main object is something else, and what the child can get out of them is incidental. Hence the need of a school. In this school the life of the child becomes the all controlling aim. All the media necessary to further the growth of the child center there. Learning? — certainly, but living primarily, and learning through and in relation to this living. hen we take the life of the child centered and organized in this way, we do not find that he is first of all a listening being; quite the contrary.
The statement so frequently made that education means “drawing out” is excellent, if we mean simply to contrast it with the process of pouring in. But, after all, it is difficult to connect the idea of drawing out with the ordinary doings of the child of three, four, seven, or eight years of age. He is already running over, spilling over, with activities of all kinds. He is not a purely latent being whom the adult has to approach with great caution and skill in order gradually to draw out some hidden germ of activity. The child is already intensely active, and the question of education is the question of taking hold of his activities, of giving them direction. Through direction, through organized use, they tend toward valuable results, instead of scattering or being left to merely impulsive expression.
If we keep this before us, the difficulty I find uppermost in the minds of many people regarding what is termed the new education is not so much solved as dissolved; it disappears. A question often asked is: if you begin with the child’s ideas, impulses and interests, all so crude, so random and scattering, so little refined or spiritualized, how is he going to get the necessary discipline, culture and information? If there were no way open to us except to excite and indulge these impulses of the child, the question might well be asked. We should either have to ignore and repress the activities, or else to humor them. But if we have organization of equipment and of materials, there is another path open to us. We can direct the child’s activities, giving them exercise along certain lines, and can thus lead up to the goal which logically stands at the end of the paths followed.
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” Since they are not, since really to satisfy an impulse or interest means to work it out, and working it out involves running up against obstacles, becoming acquainted with materials, exercising ingenuity, patience, persistence, alertness, it of necessity involves discipline — ordering of power and supplies knowledge. Take the example of the little child who wants to make a box. If he stops short with the imagination or wish, he certainly will not get discipline. But when he attempts to realize his impulse, it is a question of making his idea definite, making it into a plan, of taking the right kind of wood, measuring the parts needed, giving them the necessary proportions, etc. There is involved the preparation of materials, the sawing, planing, the sand-papering, making all the edges and corners to fit. Knowledge of tools and processes is inevitable. If the child realizes his instinct and makes the box, there is plenty of opportunity to gain discipline and perseverance, to exercise effort in overcoming obstacles, and to attain as well a great deal of information.
So undoubtedly the little child who thinks he would like to cook has little idea of what it means or costs, or what it requires. It is simply a desire to “mess around,” perhaps to imitate the activities of older people. And it is doubtless possible to let ourselves down to that level and simply humor that interest. But here, too, if the impulse is exercised, utilized, it runs up against the actual world of hard conditions, to which it must accommodate itself; and there again come in the factors of discipline and knowledge. One of the children became impatient recently, at having to work things out by a long method of experimentation, and said: “Why do we bother with this? Let’s follow a recipe in a cook-book.” The teacher asked the children where the recipe came from, and the conversation showed that if they simply followed this they would not understand the reasons for what they were doing. They were then quite willing to go on with the experimental work. To follow that work will, indeed, give an illustration of just the point in question. Their occupation happened that day to be the cooking of eggs, as making a transition from the cooking of vegetables to that of meats. In order to get a basis of comparison they first summarized the constituent food elements in the vegetables and made a preliminary comparison with those found in meat. Thus they found that the woody fiber or cellulose in vegetables corresponded to the connective tissue in meat, giving the element of form and structure. They found that starch and starchy products were characteristic of the vegetables, that mineral salts were found in both alike, and that there was fat in both — a small quantity in vegetable food and a large amount in animal. They were prepared then to take up the study of albumen as the characteristic feature of animal food, corresponding to starch in the vegetables, and were ready to consider the conditions requisite for the proper treatment of albumen — the eggs serving as the material of experiment
They experimented first by taking water at various temperatures, finding out when it was scalding, simmering, and boiling hot, and ascertained the effect of the various degrees of temperature on the white of the egg. That worked out, they were prepared, not simply to cook eggs, but to understand the principle involved in the cooking of eggs. I do not wish to lose sight of the universal in the particular incident. For the child simply to desire to cook an egg, and accordingly drop it in water for three minutes, and take it out when he is told, is not educative. But for the child to realize his own impulse by recognizing the facts, materials and conditions involved, and then to regulate his impulse through that recognition, is educative. This is the difference, upon which I wish to insist, between exciting or indulging an interest and realizing it through its direction.
Another instinct of the child is the use of pencil and paper. All children like to express themselves through the medium of form and color. If you simply indulge this interest by letting the child go on indefinitely, there is no growth that is more than accidental. But let the child first express his impulse, and then through criticism, question, and suggestion bring him to consciousness of what he has done, and what he needs to do, and the result is quite different. Here, for example, is the work of a seven-year-old child. It is not average work, it is the best work done among the little children, but it illustrates the particular principle of which I have been speaking. They had been talking about the primitive conditions of social life when people lived in caves. The child’s idea of that found expression in this way: the cave is neatly set up on the hill side in an impossible way. You see the conventional tree of childhood; a vertical line with horizontal branches on each side. If the child had be-en allowed to go on repeating this sort of thing day by day, he would be indulging his instinct rather than exercising it. But the child was now asked to look closely at trees, to compare those seen with the one drawn, to examine more closely and consciously into the conditions of his work. Then he drew trees from observation.
Finally he drew again from combined observation, memory, and imagination. He made again a free illustration, expressing his own imaginative thought, but controlled by detailed study of actual trees. The result was a scene representing a bit of forest; so far as it goes, it seems to me to have as much poetic feeling as the work of an adult, while at the same time its trees are, in their proportions possible ones, not mere symbols.
If we roughly classify the impulses which are available in the school, we may group them under four heads. There is the social instinct of the children as shown in conversation, personal intercourse, and communication. We all know how self-centered the little child is at the age of four or five If any new subject is brought up, if he says anything at all, it is: “I have seen that”; or, “My papa or mamma told me about that.” His horizon is not large; an experience must come immediately home to him, if he is to be sufficiently interested to relate it to others and seer; theirs in return. And yet the egoistic and limited interest of little children is in this manner capable of infinite expansion. The language instinct is the simplest form of the social expression of the child. Hence it is a great, perhaps the greatest of all educational resources.
Then there is the instinct of making — the constructive impulse. The child’s impulse to do finds expression first in play, in movement, gesture, and make-believe, becomes more definite, and seeks outlet in shaping materials into tangible forms and permanent embodiment. The child has not much instinct for abstract inquiry. The instinct of investigation seems to grow out of the combination of the constructive impulse with the conversational. There is no distinction between experimental science for little children and the work done in the carpenter shop. Such work as they can do in physics or chemistry is not for the purpose of making technical generalizations or even arriving at abstract truths. Children simply like to do things, and watch to see what will happen. But this can be taken advantage of, can be directed into ways where it gives results of value, as well as be allowed to go on at random.
And so the expressive impulse of the children, the art instinct, grows also out of the communicating and constructive instincts. It is their refinement and full manifestation. Make the construction adequate, make it full, free, and flexible, give it a social motive, something to tell, and you have a work of art. Take one illustration of this in connection with the textile work — sewing and weaving. The children made a primitive loom in the shop; here the constructive instinct was appealed to. Then they wished to do something with this loom, to make something. It was the type of the Indian loom, and they were shown blankets woven by the Indians. Each child made a design kindred in idea to those of the Navajo blankets, and the one which seemed best adapted to the work in hand was selected. The technical resources were limited, but the coloring and form were worked out by the children. The example shown was made by the twelve-year-old children. Examination shows that it took patience, thoroughness, and perseverance to do the work. It involved not merely discipline and information of both a historical sort and the elements of technical design, but also something of the spirit of art in adequately conveying an idea.
One more instance of the connection of the art side with the constructive side. The children had been studying primitive spinning and carding, when one of them, twelve years of age, made a picture of one of the older children spinning. Here is another piece of work which is not quite average; it is better than the average. It is an illustration of two hands and the drawing out of the wool to get it ready for spinning. This was done by a child eleven years of age. But, upon the whole, with the younger children especially, the art impulse is connected mainly with the social instinct — the desire to tell, to represent. Now, keeping in mind these fourfold interests — the interest in conversation or communication; in inquiry, or finding out things; in making things, or construction; and in artistic expression — we may say they are the natural resources, the uninvested capital, upon the exercise of which depends the active growth of the child. I wish to give one or two illustrations, the first from the work of children seven years of age. It illustrates in a way the dominant desire of the children to talk, particularly about folks end of things in relation to folks. If you observe little children, you will find they are interested in the world of things mainly in its connection with people, as a background and medium of human concerns. Many anthropologists have told us there are certain identities in the child interests with those of primitive life. There is a sort or natural recurrence of the child mind to the typical activities of primitive peoples; witness the hut which the boy likes to build in the yard, playing hunt, with bows, arrows, spears, and so on. Again the question comes: What are we to do with this interest — are we to ignore it, or just excite and draw it out? Or shall we get hold of it and direct it to something ahead, something better? Some of the work that has been planned for our seven-year-old children has the latter end in view — to utilize this interest so that it shall become a means of seeing the progress of the human race. The children begin by imagining present conditions taken away until they are in contact with nature at first hand. That takes them back to a hunting people, to a people living in caves or trees and getting a precarious subsistence by hunting and fishing. They imagine as far as possible the various natural physical conditions adapted to that sort of life; say, a hilly, woody slope, near mountains and a river where fish would be abundant. Then they go on in imagination through the hunting to the semi-agricultural stage, and through the nomadic to the settled agricultural stage. The point I wish to make is that there is abundant opportunity thus given for actual study, for inquiry which results in gaining information. So, while the instinct primarily appeals to the social side, the interest of the child in people and their doings is carried on into the larger world of reality. For example, the children had some idea of primitive weapons, of the stone arrowhead, etc. That provided occasion for the testing of materials as regards their friability, their shape, texture, etc., resulting in a lesson in mineralogy, as they examined the different stones to find which was best suited to the purpose. The discussion of the iron age supplied a demand for the construction of a smelting oven made out of clay, and of considerable size. As the children did not get their drafts right at first, the mouth of the furnace not being in proper relation to the vent, as to size and position, instruction in the principles of combustion, the nature of drafts and of fuel, was required. Yet the instruction was not given ready-made; it was first needed, and then arrived at experimentally. Then the children took some material, such as copper, and went through a series of experiments, fusing it, working it into objects; and the same experiments were made with lead and other metals. This work has been also a continuous course in geography, since the children have had to imagine and work out the various physical conditions necessary to the different forms of social life implied. What would be the physical conditions appropriate to pastoral life? to the beginning of agriculture? to fishing? What would be the natural method of exchange between these peoples, Having worked out such points in conversation, they have afterward represented them in maps and sand-molding. Thus they have gained ideas of the various forms of the configuration of the earth, and at the same time have seen them in their relation to human activity, so that they are not simply external facts, but are fused and welded with social conceptions regarding the life and progress of humanity. The result, to my mind, justifies completely the conviction that children, in a year of such work (of five hours a week altogether), get indefinitely more acquaintance with facts of science, geography, and anthropology than they get where information is the professed end and object, where they are simply set to learning facts in fixed lessons. As to discipline, they get more training of attention, more power of interpretation, of drawing inferences, of acute observation and continuous reflection, than if they were put to working out arbitrary problems simply for the sake of discipline.
I should like at this point to refer to the recitation. We all know what it has been — a placer where the child shows off to the teacher and the other children the amount of information he has succeeded in assimilating from the text-book. From this other standpoint, the recitation becomes preeminently: a social meeting place; it is to the school what the spontaneous conversation is at home, excepting that it is more organized, following definite lines. The recitation becomes the social clearing-house, where experiences and ideas are exchanged and subjected to criticism, where misconceptions are corrected, and new lines of thought and inquiry are set up.
This change of the recitation from an examination of knowledge already acquired to the free play of the children’s communicative instinct, affects and modifies all the language work of the school. Under the old regime it was unquestionably a most serious problem to give the children a full and free use of language. The reason was obvious. The natural motive for language was seldom offered. In the pedagogical text-books language is defined as the medium of expressing thought. It becomes that, more or less, to adults with trained minds, but it hardly needs to be said that language is primarily a social thing, a means by which we give our experiences to others and get theirs again in return. When it is taken from its natural basis, it is no wonder that it becomes a complex and difficult problem to teach language. Think of the absurdity of having to teach language as a thing by itself. If there is anything the child will do before he goes to school, it is to talk of the things that interest him. But when there are no vital interests appealed to in the school, when language is used simply- for the repetition of lessons, it is not surprising that one of the chief difficulties of school work has come to be instruction in the mother-tongue. Since the language taught is unnatural, not growing out of the real desire to communicate vital impressions and convictions, the freedom of children in its use gradually disappears, until finally the high-school teacher has to invent all kinds of devices to assist in getting any spontaneous and full use of speech. Moreover, when the language instinct is appealed to in a social way, there is a continual contact with reality. The result is that the child always has something in his mind to talk about, he has something to say; he has a thought to express, and a thought is not a thought unless it is one’s own. On the traditional method, the child must say something that he has merely learned. There is all the difference in the world between having something to say and having to say something. The child who has a variety of materials and facts wants to talk about them, and his language becomes more refined and full, because it is controlled and informed by realities. Reading and writing, as well as the oral use of language, may be taught on this basis. It can be done in a related way, as the outgrowth of the child’s social desire to recount his experiences and get in return the experiences of others, directed always through contact with the facts and forces which determine the truth communicated
I shall not have time to speak of the work of the older children, where the original crude instincts of construction and communication have been developed into something like scientifically directed inquiry, but I will give an illustration of the use of language following upon this experimental work. The work was on the basis of a simple experiment of the commonest sort, gradually leading the children out into geological and geographical study. The sentences that I am going to read seem to me poetic as well as “scientific.” “A long time ago when the earth was new, when it was lava, there was no water on the earth, and there was steam all round the earth up in the air, as there were many gases in the air. One of them was carbon dioxide. The steam became clouds, because the earth began to cool off, and after awhile it began to rain, and the water came down and dissolved the carbon dioxide from the air.” There is a good deal more science in that than probably would be apparent at the outset. It represents some three months of work on the part of the child. The children kept daily and weekly records, but this is part of the summing up of the quarter’s work. I call this language poetic, because the child has a clear image and has a personal feeling for the realities imaged. I extract sentences from two other records to illustrate further the vivid use of language when there is a vivid experience back of it. “When the earth was cold enough to condense, the water, with the help of carbon dioxide, pulls the calcium out of the rocks into a large body of water where the little animals could get it.” The other reads as follows: “When the earth cooled, calcium was in the rocks. Then the carbon dioxide and water united and formed a solution, and, as it ran, it tore out the calcium and carried it on to the sea, where there were little animals who took it out of solution.” The use of such words as “pulled” and “tore” in connection with the process of chemical combination evidences a personal realization which compels its own appropriate expression. If I had not taken so much time in my other illustrations, I should like to show how, beginning with very simple material things, the children were led on to larger fields of investigation, and to the intellectual discipline that is the accompaniment of such research. I will simply mention the experiment in which the work began. It consisted in making precipitated chalk, used for polishing metals. The children, with simple apparatus — a tumbler, lime water, and a glass tube — precipitated the calcium carbonate out of the water; and from this beginning went on to a study of the processes by which rocks of various sorts, igneous, sedimentary, etc., had been formed on the surface of the earth and the places they occupy; then to points in the geography of the United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico; to the effects of these various bodies of rock, in their various configurations, upon the human occupations; so that this geological record finally rounded itself out into the life of man at the present time. The children saw and felt the connection between these geologic processes taking place ages and ages ago, and the physical conditions determining the industrial occupations of today.
Of all the possibilities involved in the subject, “The School and the Life of the Child,” I have selected but one, because I have found that that one gives people more difficulty, is more of stumbling-block, than any other. One may be ready to admit that it would be most desirable for the school to be a place in which the child should really live, and get a life-experience in which he should delight and find meaning for its own sake. But then we hear this inquiry: how, upon this basis, shall the child get the needed information; how shall he undergo the required discipline? Yes, it has come to this, that with many, if not most, people the normal processes of life appear to be incompatible with getting information and discipline. So I have tried to indicate, in a highly general and inadequate way (for only the school itself, in its daily operation, could give a detailed and worthy representation), how the problem works itself out — how it is possible to lay hold upon the rudimentary instincts of human nature, and, by supplying a proper medium, so control their expression as not only to facilitate and enrich the growth of the individual child, but also to supply the results, and far more, of technical information and discipline that have been the ideals of education in the past.
But although I have selected this especial way of approach (as a concession to the question almost universally raised), I am not willing to leave the matter in this more or less negative and explanatory condition. Life is the great thing after all; the life of the child at its time and in its measure, no less than the life of the adult. Strange would it be, indeed, if intelligent and serious attention to what the child now needs and is capable of in the way of a rich, valuable, and expanded life should somehow conflict with the needs and possibilities of later, adult life. “Let us live with our children,” certainly means, first of all, that our children shall live — not that they shall be hampered and stunted by being forced into all kinds of conditions, the most remote consideration of which is relevancy to the present life of the child. If we seek the kingdom of heaven, educationally, all other things shall be added unto us — which, being interpreted, is that if we identify ourselves with the real instincts and needs of childhood, and ask only after its fullest assertion and growth, the discipline and information and culture of adult life shall all come in their due season.
Speaking of culture reminds me that in a way I have been speaking only of the outside of the child’s activity — only of the outward expression of his impulses toward saying, making, finding out, and creating. The real child, it hardly need be said, lives in the world of imaginative values, and ideas which find only imperfect outward embodiment. We hear much nowadays about the cultivation of the child’s “imagination.” Then we undo much of our own talk and work; by a belief that the imagination is some special part of the child, that finds its satisfaction in some one particular direction — generally speaking, that of the unreal and make-believe, of the myth and made-up story. Why are we so hard of heart and so slow to believe? The imagination is the medium in which the child lives. To him there is everywhere and in everything that occupies his mind and activity at all, a surplus of value and significance. The question of the relation of the school to the child’s life is at bottom simply this: shall we ignore this native setting and tendency, dealing not with the living child at all, but with the dead image we have erected, or shall we give it play and satisfaction? If we once believe in life and in the life of the child, then will all the occupations and uses spoken of, then will all history and science, become instruments of appeal and materials of culture to his imagination, and through that to the richness and the orderliness of his life. Where we now see only the outward doing and the outward product, there, behind all visible results, is the re-adjustment of mental attitude, the enlarged and sympathetic vision, the sense of growing power, and the willing ability to identify both insight and capacity with the interests of the world and man. Unless culture be a superficial polish, a veneering of mahogany over common wood, it surely is this — the growth of the imagination in flexibility, in scope, and in sympathy, till the life which the individual lives is informed with the life of nature and of society. When nature and society can live in the schoolroom, when the forms and tools of learning are subordinated to the substance of experience, then shall there be an opportunity for this identification, and culture shall be the democratic password.
2