Controversies in Education / Student Teaching Philosophers - Q&A

Should schooling be based on social experiences?

John Dewey says yes, learning should be acquired through relevant, productive experiences, as opposed to being taught by textbook and lecture. Dewey feels that the latter method is geared to adults, not to the learning needs and abilities of children. His progressive philosophy views education as something that grows from the individual child, rather than being handed down, almost forcefully, from adults. He cautions, however, against reflexively rejecting traditional teaching practices, preferring to improve them instead. Notably, he makes an argument that is heard a lot today: that education should address the needs of present and future society, not just impart information from the past. Instead, past knowledge should be used as a means to construct new, more relevant knowledge, and not be looked upon as the end point of all there is to know.

Roger Scruton says no, education should be conducted in the traditional manner that has worked for centuries. He believes that received knowledge, passed from texts and teachers to receptive pupils, is a viable form of learning, especially if the teachers are experts in their fields. In his view, expertise in a subject matter is the critical factor, and he looks down on professional education as a university program. There is no need to educate teachers to be professionals, he thinks; the emphasis should be on the subject they will teach.

Why I chose this topic: It is an argument that has been ongoing for a hundred years, is still highly controversial, and requires a choice between two opposing philosophies of education. I side with Dewey-perhaps because I am the professionally trained educator that Scruton warns against.

Should the curriculum be standardized for all?

Mortimer Adler says yes, all students at all levels should receive the same basic schooling. He objects to a multitrack educational system, saying that it is not rigorous enough. He says that students will not be prepared to participate meaningfully in society if they can't realize their potential. They will not be prepared to contribute to society as either worker or as voters. The only elective he would allow is a modern foreign language. Other than that, the curriculum would be traditional (somewhat expanded), and vocational training would be prohibited. He is in favor of exploratory learning, however.

John Holt says no, students should have a choice of what and how to learn. He believes that free people deserve freedom in their learning. He includes this type of education under freedom of thought, freedom of ideas, and freedom of speech. The type of education he recommends does not include a mandatory curriculum, or even mandatory attendance, believing that they are servants of an educational industry. He sees a threat that compulsory school might be extended beyond high school, threatening a form of mind control.

Why I chose this topic: These ideas affect the entire structure and underlying philosophy of education, and are thus of concern to every educator. While I believe that students should be able to input ideas into the formation of their education, I think that Holt's fears and ideas for letting children skip school whenever they want to are ridiculous. He brings up some legitimate concerns-the bullying, bad teacher, for instance-but does not address them in a realistic manner. The anecdotal episodes he mentions are not a sufficient basis for making the radical changes he proposes. He goes far beyond the idea that students should play a role in their own learning.

Is constructivism the best philosophy of education?

David Elkind says yes, constructivism offers students the kind of participatory learning that helps them be invested in their own education. Although constructivist methods of teaching require more time and effort that the traditional, textbook/lecture/test method, Elkind feels they are well worth the trouble. The teacher and the curriculum must be prepared to implement this type of education, and society must accept that it is a worthwhile method that results in real learning. All three forms of readiness are vital to success, and many constructivist programs fail to adequately prepare all three.

Jamin Carson says no, constructivism as a method is inferior to objectivism. Objectivism allows for only one version of reality, while constructivism has room for shades of gray. Child development theory plays far less of a role in objectivism. Carson's own experience in trying to implement constructivism was not successful because students did not understand the concept. This says less about constructivism than about Carson's ability to employ it.

Why I chose this topic: This ties directly into the topics addressed above. It is another aspect of the dichotomy of received versus explored knowledge. I side with exploration and constructivism, although I think these are built on a basic foundation of "factual" (i.e., imparted) knowledge.

Should "public schooling" be redefined?

Frederick M. Hess says yes, the traditional concept of the public school is inadequate to meet the needs of contemporary society and should be remodeled. Public schools are financed by government revenues and are thus overseen by the government, but nongovernmental organizations may be involved in its administration or even its financing. One of the problems in defining public education is deciding what its purpose is, from the standpoint of the public good. Is it to teach good citizenship? Values? Critical thinking? There is no consensus on the answers to these questions, and many parents want their children to learn particular values that are not specifically taught in public schools. Hess's argument, however, is that some public school teachers use their classrooms to promote their own personal beliefs.

Linda Nathan says no, redefinition opens the way to for-profit entities whose goals may be in direct conflict with those of public schools (as they are currently defined). She sees the specter of profit-making educational ventures as a real threat, and the push for vouchers to private schools not much better. She (correctly) criticizes Hess for advocating thinly disguised attacks on the traditional role of public schools by accusing them of having a liberal point of view. His alternative, she says, is support of new types of schools that have a definite agenda, such as making a profit or promoting religion-and doing it with public money. Her ideas are reinforced and expanded upon by Joe Nathan, Ray Bacchetti, and Evans Clinchy.

Why I chose this topic: It is very timely. Online public schooling is the latest example of drastic changes in the way public education is offered. I was surprised when I began to see commercials for elementary age students (as well as older ones) being taught online in their homes-as a form of public schooling. I admit I haven't explored how this works or what the differences are from a traditional classroom setting, but it is intriguing (and somewhat threatening to a teacher). I'm not sure what I think of that, but I am sure that private schools and for-profit schools are not public schools. I also don't think vouchers should be used to attend any of these types of schools.

Has the Supreme Court reconfigured American education?

Charles L. Glenn says yes, and it was a good thing. He believes that secularism is too prevalent in public education and religious schools should be allowed to receive federal funds. He disagrees that secularism has the effect of reducing conflict between different religious sects. He also argues in favor of traditional teaching methods and objectivism.

Paul E. Peterson says no, offering vouchers to parents is not an endorsement of private religious schools. Furthermore, he says that government already supports religion in several ways-Pell Grants to religious colleges, child care credits for church daycare, and tax breaks for contributions to religious organizations, for instance. Peterson's opinion is that religious schools have not indoctrinated their pupils in intolerance of other types of religion and tend to be more involved with the community than public schools are. (There are, of course a few exceptions.) Vouchers used to attend religious schools have resulted in raised test scores for African American students, according to Peterson. Counterintuitively, some school districts have reported improvements in the test scores of students who remained in public schools when other students have used vouchers to attend private schools.

Why I chose this topic: It is one of the most sensitive topics in education today. Both sides feel very deeply, as their arguments show. I found that I truly disagree with many of Glenn's claims. He ignores the fact that secular enlightenment, of the kind offered by public schools, and the enlightenment offered by religious schools are most often quite different. Secularism, by definition, is separate from religious beliefs, and in countries where there are many different religions, this is the best way to promote tolerance and discourage strife. Glenn seems to believe that anyone who does not support government funding of religious schools is against religion, and I disagree with that. Also, he doesn't understand that good morals are not exclusive to religion. Secularists can be moral, too. Finally, a secular school does not intend to separate students from their religions. It just avoids promoting religion, which comes in too many varieties to be a part of public schools.

Can failing schools be turned around?

Karin Chenoweth says yes, and goes on to give specific examples of how it can be done. One of the ideas that impressed me most was the realization that American teachers tend to be isolated in their classrooms. The collaboration model that Chenoweth mentions is much better because it builds in time for teachers to confer with each other about how to teach students background knowledge that they will need to master before they can be brought up to grade level standards.

Andy Smarick says no, improvement efforts have consistently failed. He cites instances where failure has occurred-but ignores schools like the examples ones Chenoweth describes. Smarick uses the example of industry/business to make the case that failing schools should be closed and replaced by charter schools. His analogy is that a school is like a business, and failing businesses are forced to close their doors. This argument presumes, in my opinion, that children are like products the school turns out. Closing a failing school is like giving up on its students, telling them they are not worth saving.

Why I chose this topic: The decision to close a "failing" school can have a profound impact on the families whose children attend the school-but so can failing to fix the school's problems. The students whose school fails them are, in effect, cheated out of their right to a good education, which is a guaranteed right. If a school does not teach well, whatever the problems of its students, society as a whole suffers. But mostly, the individual suffers. A quality education offers hope and a chance of success to all students. A poor education offers nothing, and may even prevent the student from succeeding in life. If failing schools cannot be turned around, alternatives must be found-and these alternatives are often controversial and, sometimes, suspect (e.g., for-profit schools, where the bottom line may be the most important goal).

Is privatization the hope of the future?

Chris Whittle says yes, that the competition inherent in privatization makes innovation and success mandatory if a school is to stay open. He feels that the education establishment is too comfortable and invested in the status quo to do what needs to be done to improve schools, so private sector innovation is needed. He sees schools as potential businesses that must be competitive in order to stay open.

Henry Levin says no, Whittle's vision is too simplistic. He says the privatization model has been tried, unsuccessfully, before. While many of Whittle's ideas are solid and workable, they should be applied to public, not private, education. The profit motive may work well for businesses, but children are not products; they are far more complicated and individualized.

Why I chose this topic: While I am on the side of improving, not replacing, public education, I think that the privatization advocates may have some valuable ideas to offer (although privatization itself is not the answer). I think the complications of this issue are worth discussing and exploring.

Is the inclusive classroom model workable?

Mara Sapon-Shevin says yes, the inclusive classroom is good for all students, including those without disabilities. The main purpose of inclusion, she says, is to broaden the horizons of all students. Accommodation and diversified instruction should be built into educational planning, not tacked on for individual students. The key is to increase awareness and acceptance of differences.

Wade A. Carpenter says no, creating successful inclusive classrooms is not that easy. He says that, while we shouldn't go back to the noninclusive ways of the past, we should be more sensitive to which students will benefit from mainstreaming. Furthermore, students without disabilities need to be sufficiently challenged, and often they suffer from a slow pace and over-simplified instruction in an inclusive classroom. He also wants to see less emphasis on socialization. He is quite concerned with allowing criminals, as he calls them, in the classroom. My problem with this view would be in the decision to classify some students as criminals. A criminal record is one thing, but misbehavior, while disruptive and unproductive, should not be enough to brand a child as a criminal. It could even be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Carpenter would just allow some kids to skip school altogether.

Why I chose this topic: I chose it because every teacher, at some point, will have to deal with inclusion. I do, every day. I am a teaching assistant and I work with learning disabled students. Also, I myself have dyslexia, so I know how much hard work it takes to overcome that kind of challenge. The points brought up by these authors are somewhat different from what I expected to read, but they are certainly valid. I have been fortunate enough to not encounter the types of students that concern Carpenter, so my opinion in favor of inclusiveness can't be based on the experiences he describes. I will have to consider his essay some more.

Can zero tolerance violate students' rights?

Supreme Court Justice David Souter says yes, in his opinion for the Court's decision. The majority of the Court ruled that the strip search of a 13 year old female middle school student violated her 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. I know that decisions like this are based strictly on the law, and I think the Court certainly made the right decision. But I think it should also be mentioned that, however admirable their goal of keeping students safe might be, any school official who thinks it won't harm a middle school girl to strip search her has got his or her priorities severely out of order.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says no, the school officials were justified in doing the strip search because he thinks the standard described by the majority opinion is not specific enough. He believes that schools should be allowed to make their own judgments in such matters and the government should not interfere.

Why I chose this topic: This is a controversial topic, and both sides have legitimate concerns. School administrators have a difficult challenge in trying to keep schools safe, and failure to do so can have severe consequences. On the other hand, administrators are also responsible for following the law, and this requires respecting the rights of students. Trying to do both things must be like walking a tightrope, and I don't envy the administrators. However, common sense, in this case especially, should be followed. Given the nature of the pills they were looking for, and the lack of a good reason to think the student was hiding the pills in her underwear, the officials made the wrong decision, possibly scarring the student emotionally in the process.

Is the "21st century skills" movement viable?

Andrew J. Rotherham and Daniel T. Willingham says yes, the movement's goals are worthwhile-but only if they are implemented properly. They do not want to see this movement become just another educational fad, because they think it has much to offer to students and society both. They say that critical thinking skills, problem solving, and a global point of view are already part of the curriculum, and are certainly skills that will be necessary in the future, as they are today. What is necessary is a serious commitment to these goals, which means a comprehensive program that is more than just teaching a set of skills. Teachers must also be trained correctly, and learning must be assessed in a way that reflects the new types of skills.

Diana Senechal says no, traditional education does the job it's supposed to, and the movement for 21st century skills is just another fad. She calls for a common-sense approach to using technology, which means using it as a tool rather than an end in itself. The danger is in treating students as future employees rather than as individuals who deserve a full, well-rounded education. I think the best solution lies somewhere in between these two authors. Students need to be prepared to get good jobs, but they shouldn't be treated like commodities for employers' use.

Why I chose this topic: I watched the recent presidential debate, and I noticed how often President Obama mentioned the need to focus education on the needs of the 21st century. By this, I think he means that students in school today must learn the skills they will need in a rapidly-changing world that relies more and more on technology and globalization. Therefore, this is an important topic that is shaping national policy. I think that schools will be unable to avoid dealing with it. I also agree that needs are changing, but I also think that basics should continue to be important. To give a really basic-level example: If a catastrophe ever turned off the electric grid, people would have to resort to writing by hand, so even though such an event is unlikely, we should be prepared. I also agree with Rotherham and Willingham that critical thinking skills and solving problems are always valuable skills, so emphasizing them is important, but not something new.

Philosophers and the most important question.

I chose Is privatization the hope of the future? as the most important question because privatization of many public functions is currently being vigorously debated in the United States. In Europe, the state plays a different role than it does here, and I think it is interesting that so many people in the U.S. want the government to become smaller and do less for the people. These people want privatization-which, to me, means letting businesses run things-to offer competition, which they think will make improvements inevitable.

But is this really true? I found an article that compares the test scores of students who attend for-profit and not-for-profit charter schools in Michigan over a four-year period. The results showed that there was little difference between the two: there was "no evidence of a change in efficiency when a charter school is run by a for-profit company (versus a not-for-profit company)" (Hill and Welsch 147). Although this is only one study, it confirms my opinion that introducing a profit motive into education will ultimately benefit only the business and its investors.

Privatization sounds like a very modern issue, but when I think about it, public schools are a relatively recent phenomenon. Therefore, I'll look at two philosophers from the 19th century or later.

Fanny Coppin, an African-American educational activist from the late 19th and early 20th century, believed strongly in vocational as well as traditional education for black Americans. At the time she lived, slavery was a recent memory and Jim Crow laws were in effect. For this reason, black citizens were far more likely to make a good living from learning a manual or industrial skill than from extensive studies in the traditional liberal arts. Working with businesses to teach black students in a way that would give them a good basic education and a marketable skill would probably have pleased Coppin. However, she would not want the students/future employees to be exploited by their educators.

Howard Gardner, who is still a professional educator today, would be wary of possible exploitation, but he would also be concerned about privatized schools that generalized education too much in an effort to meet standardized goals. His emphasis on the individuality of students might mean that a business approach to education rewarded some types of intelligences more than others. For instance, if a student's talents were in the areas of music or kinesthetic movement, would the business-directed school value them as much as students who were good at math or negotiation? Perhaps the privatized school would be, because they wanted to please parents, but there would still be a risk that a student who threatened a profit margin might be overlooked or made to fit into an uncomfortable mold. Or just as bad, the student might feel that the school had little to offer him or her and lose interest. Gardner would want to see every child's potential realized, not just the students who will produce great test scores that will keep the school in business.

Work Cited

Hill, Cynthia D., and David M. Welsch. "For-profit versus Not-for-profit Charter Schools: An Examination of Michigan Student Test Scores." Education Economics 17.2: 145-66. Academic Search Premier.

Noll, James. William. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. 17th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.