Education is a fundamental aspect of the human experience. It is regarded by many by the process by which an individual gains new knowledge, skills, or habits. The process of education never truly ends, as no matter how old you become or far you are from a formal institute, like a school, you are always learning and gaining new experiences. As education and the process of learning is such a powerful part of human life, it is no surprise that scientists, philosophers, and scholars alike have devoted so much time towards unraveling the most effective way an individual can learn. These methods, or “traditions”, have been tried in different environments with varying levels of success. In this paper, I intend to discuss these traditions: Humanist, Progressivism, Social Efficiency, and Critical Pedagogy, and their implications to schooling systems as a whole.
Humanism is a philosophy that was established in the early 19th century by Friedrich Neithammer, a German philosopher and theologian (“Humanism”). Humanism was one of many secular intellectual movements that occurred during the Renaissance, which worked to have humans consider science and empirical data over religious texts. The basic principle is valuing critical thinking and the process of gathering and analyzing evidence over accepting superstitions at face value. It was not until the late 20th century when Humanism was adapted to work in schools by psychologists like Abraham Maslow, whose studies indicated that effective teachers are ones who care about a student’s emotions and can work with a student on a personal level. Humanistic teachers go beyond teaching a student facts and instead foster a student’s desire to learn and provide the tools to do so effectively. They take the role of facilitators, and make students consider inquiry based questions which allow the learner to go as deep as they want in a given topic. This lends itself in interesting ways as it guides a student’s learning. A student will be motivated to learn about a subject if it is something the student believes he needs or wants to know. This is interesting, because it allows emotion to play a role in the learning process. Unlike traditional forms of teaching which separates emotion from learning, humanism enables education to be self guided. If a student is frustrated with a topic, he is allowed to give up and try another topic instead. Grades also hold less weight; a student should learn for self satisfaction and not just a score. Humanistic education has blended with traditional schooling, and we see this in many public schools in America.
Schools in Highlands Ranch, my hometown, use this type of blended humanism as well as many other public schools in America. Throughout my high school education, we were given open schedules. Various courses, like math, science, and English, were taught at different times of day, and you could choose your own schedule. There were also options to emphasize on science, taking as many as 3 different classes a semester. A student could have also chosen art, and would have tackled different artistic disciplines like pottery or jewelry. What stood out as particularly humanistic was the emphasis on group work and team building and teaching anti-theistic beliefs. We were put in small groups in our individual classes that were assigned randomly, so students of high and low aptitude in a class would be put together. This was done so students could help each other, and learning would be a social experience. A drawback of this method that I noticed, was how much time was wasted talking about irrelevant material. By “trusting” kids to work in small groups, many students might become distracted and learning is hindered. However, according to research done by Bill Huitt, a known psychologist and proponent of Humanism, many students demonstrated more motivation to learn in small groups and were able to develop positive relationships among peers. We were also taught evolution, which flies in the face of religion and the Bible. Students were not given an option to back out, or at least it was not clearly stated. Straying away from theism made students more open minded to facts and data rather than the metaphysical.
Progressive Education is a philosophy and field of research that strays away from the norm of preparing students for secondary education. It is guided by principles such as “learning by doing”, combining community service with school work, lesson plans being tailored for individual students, and developing social skills. Jean-Jacques Roussaeu is considered to have the laid the groundwork for progressivism by believing that students learn better when discovering and learning for themselves rather than given all the answers. Progressive teaching builds on the work of educators like Freidrich Frobel, who believe that children express themselves through play and learn best when allowed to do so naturally. Teachers then guide learning rather than force their ideals on their students. Work done by Frobel and Roussaeu laid the framework for what would be the Progressive Movement in 19th century. John Dewey set the framework for what much of education is today. He believed that schools are extensions of the social conditions around them. Schools and lessons should prepare students not for the future necessarily, but to understand their lives presently (Kohn). Dewey believed that lessons should be tailored to student interests so learning will happen outside of the classroom, otherwise the student will become passive and retain nothing. I believe Progressivism is an immense achievement for the state of education. It radically changed the relationship between students and teachers and allowed for a more holistic education.
Social efficiency is a theory that was propagated by behavioral scientists and psychologists, namely: Herbert Gintis and John Ogbu (“Social Efficiency Theory”). It was a movement that tried to tailor learning to student’s performance on IQ tests. By analyzing a student’s score, it should be possible to see what they would achieve as an adult and groom their education to fit that mold. Another aspect of social efficiency is to have students proficient in skills that impact society in the most effective way. While humanistic education and progressivism are examples of how to cater education to the individual learner, Social efficiency is most concerned with how a student can have the most positive influence on society. This concept also represents Social efficiency’s greatest criticism: it reinforces separation of social classes, as the dominant classes are able to receive the most effective education while the lower class does not.
Education, in an ideal world, is supposed to foster the emotional and intellectual development of all students regardless of social class as well as groom students into becoming productive members of society. However, according to the research of Ogbu, this was not occurring. Education seemed to serve wealthier neighborhoods more than the poorer ones and did little to change the social hierarchy. This means that instead of blending the dominant and not dominant classes, as education was intended to do, the dominant stay dominant not because of intelligence or aptitude but because of their social class and their access to better resources. This manifests itself in a more practical sense: students in richer neighborhoods are motivated to choose higher paying jobs, like doctor or lawyer, while students in poorer neighborhoods gravitate lower paying jobs, like cashier or busboy. I believe Social efficiency represents a glaring issue in not only our education system but society as a whole, where only the rich or those born into wealth can have the brightest future and the best opportunities.
Critical Pedagogy represents yet another style of teaching that takes philosophical concepts and adapts them education. In this case, critical theory which is the idea of constantly critiquing and inquiring the state and functions of your society and culture is interwoven into student lessons. According to Ira Shor, a proponent of Critical Pedagogy who wrote “Empowering Education”, the idea that students need to become active learners and skilled workers represent the crux of this movement. Students are implored to constantly question the deeper meanings behind their education. Critical Pedagogy gained acclaim in 1968 with Paolo Friere in his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Friere outlined, in his mind, the ideal relationship between teachers, students, and society. He believed teachers are to train students to recognize and challenge oppressions in their lives or the lives of others. Unlike Social efficiency which unwittingly revealed how distinct classes are, Friere understood this and actively tried to pursue a style of education that did not contribute to social injustice. His book mentions how students are either raised or taught in such a way that they believe their injustices are just a part of life. A teacher should then add this dimension to a lesson, because once a student comprehends their plight, they can change it. Friere highlights the necessity of revolution, which overthrows the political and economic powers that oppress people, and believes it is a necessary part of the human experience to constantly work towards a revolution.
I believe that revolution is not as important as Paolo Friere makes it out to be. Revolution, more often than not, makes people doubt and distrust their government. To make every lesson a political one and to constantly doubt the powers that be does not make a cooperative nation. By criticizing every instance of oppression, we fail to see its potential benefits. For example, the UN Interventions in the 1990’s which resulted in airstrikes against Serbian resources to prevent further Yugoslavian massacres (“History of Peacekeeping”). Civilian lives were lost, but this oppression actually led to a period of peace. A student in Yugoslavia under Critical Pedagogy would believe the world is conspiring against him instead of respecting the sacrifices made for him. I also believe that because Critical Pedagogy puts so much faith in the teachers for the indoctrination of values, Friere ignores the value of parents and other social institutions or at worst tries to actively undermine them. Parents undeniably play a strong role in a child’s development and in many cases it is unnecessary and damaging to try and have children stray away from the ideals of their parents.
In the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, a program I took in High School, many tenets of Critical Pedagogy were upheld. We were taught to think critically about not only our struggles but the struggles of other people across cultural divides. Each class was supposed to be relevant and connected to some event happening somewhere in the world. This worked fine in our social sciences and literature classes but it became clear that math and science lessons would be difficult to relate back social injustices. I think Critical Pedagogy is an effective philosophy of teaching because it teaches students to think critically and supports group-work and collaboration, but I believe it falls short in that tries to raise students into thinking the world is a brutal place and everyone at all times is suffering from some form of injustice.
Education in its narrowest sense is the process by which people learn new skills and habits, however it is so much more than that. Education represents the ideals of its nations, and sets the stage for a lifetime of learning. Students under passionate and effective educators learn more than just facts, they learn how to live more fulfilling lives. Since education is such an important part of a person’s life, and holds so much power, it is not surprising people have dedicated their lives to studying its most effective form. I think education has been through many upheavals throughout the course of human history and as we learn more about ourselves and each other, it will continue to change and evolve. I believe because of many factors like cultural divides, population sizes, family structures and how wildly they can differ across regions there may never be a “most effective” pedagogy.