In the last sixty years or so, education has been gradually transformed in the United States and some other countries. The focus has shifted away from the teacher instructing and towards the student "discovering" knowledge, the latter now being considered more valid, in many cases, than the former. This change in how children are taught in school has mirrored the evolution of the parent/child relationship, and on an even broader level, the way authority is viewed in the public mind.
The notion we have of the child as a special, separate being, with its own distinct sensibility, is a relatively recent one. This changed conception of childhood (and it was a revolutionary change, departing completely from the view, held for hundreds of years if not longer, of children as virtual non-entities) found its full flowering in decades following World War 2, and is of course still very much with us now.
As regards education, the child's mind had been viewed formerly almost as a mere physical recipient, its personality a moral blank slate. Through rote learning and reading material carefully selected by adults, all children would learn more or less the same body of knowledge, in the same manner. There was also the belief that education could impart a sense of morals. There was, on the other hand, little concern about the learning process itself and whether it was intrinsically at all enjoyable for the students. Their individual will counted for little or nothing in the classroom. The teacher's authority, in theory, was absolute.
Those with a nostalgic view of this style of education would say that, at the very least, the children at least used to learn a uniform body of knowledge: arithmetic, geography, literature, (in some cases) ancient and possibly modern languages. Most of us, however (those with a living memory of this old-fashioned education are ever rarer), while we might admit to the quaintness of education as it was practiced before the interior life of the child had been discovered and exalted, would be dismissive of this strictly hierarchical style of education.
Educational theorists have, in more recent times, informed us that children are not to be instructed, but rather guided in their acquisition of knowledge. The inherent creativity of the child's mind must be treated with respect; it should never subjected to excessive rigor, lest the child's spirit should somehow be harmed, or even extinguished. Teachers must seek to "motivate" their students by providing an underlying rationale for learning a subject, by appealing to their imagination as well as to their reason. Rote learning has been called into question, and if it is not possible to avoid memorization altogether, the tediousness of memorizing multiplication tables, chemical symbols, and so forth must be addressed by applying "creative" methods. Students write on subjects they find appealing (grammar is seldom taught as a separate subject any longer); they also select a good deal of their reading based on interest. If books are assigned, care is taken that they should possess some inherent appeal to the student.
In the contemporary view, the child's mind is a temple to which educators must show a devotion bordering on the dogmatic. The teacher is not an absolute authority, but an "educational leader" with a strictly provisional hold over his or her classroom.
I am aware that in France, there has recently been a backlash against contemporary educational practices (which they call, with some contempt, "pedagogy", so as to distinguish the child-centered approach from what its detractors view as truly substantive education). This dissent has firmly entered the public debate on education in that country. For all the debate in this country on how to reform education, we, on the other hand, hear few lasting arguments that might call pedagogy into question. The child in our society, for better, but so very often for worse, holds a place of outsized importance. We could never again subject children to rigorous 'top-down' instruction lacking in creative amenities. Children are our equals in some respects, maybe even our betters. Pedagogy is the foundation of our American educational thought.
While the contemporary child's experience of school may be more pleasant, in many cases, than it was a hundred years ago, by any number of measures American students leave school less well educated than their forbears (even allowing for the great advances in knowledge of the intervening years). The ability to write a pleasing, grammatical letter, to read a map with confidence, to compute by hand, to speak of literature in a knowledgable way, to make a coherent oral argument -- all of these skills were once possessed by many citizens of modest upbringing. Beyond the elite level of society, very few Americans can apply any of the aforementioned skills with competence anymore.
In the ongoing American debate on education, one sees a kind of circular motion of blame: adminsistrators complain of teacher's unions and their arcane work rules; teachers blame a fractured society for creating students who are unable to learn, or who lack interest in learning; parents say public schools are underfunded and chaotic; public commentators say school systems are self-protecting fiefdoms more interested in creating employment than upholding standards. All of these arguments may be justified. However, lacking a commitment to address them, we will make only halting progress in solving the many problems that face American public education. And what we will never see, it is safe to say, is a serious questioning of our "pedagogical" teaching methods. Our society is convinced that the exercise of pure authority in the classroom is inherently suspect, and that erudition need not be the principal goal of education. The "process" of learning is more important than the acquisition of knowledge and skills, it seems. Until we bring ourselves around to exactly the opposite view, our educational system will remain inadequate.
The notion we have of the child as a special, separate being, with its own distinct sensibility, is a relatively recent one. This changed conception of childhood (and it was a revolutionary change, departing completely from the view, held for hundreds of years if not longer, of children as virtual non-entities) found its full flowering in decades following World War 2, and is of course still very much with us now.
As regards education, the child's mind had been viewed formerly almost as a mere physical recipient, its personality a moral blank slate. Through rote learning and reading material carefully selected by adults, all children would learn more or less the same body of knowledge, in the same manner. There was also the belief that education could impart a sense of morals. There was, on the other hand, little concern about the learning process itself and whether it was intrinsically at all enjoyable for the students. Their individual will counted for little or nothing in the classroom. The teacher's authority, in theory, was absolute.
Those with a nostalgic view of this style of education would say that, at the very least, the children at least used to learn a uniform body of knowledge: arithmetic, geography, literature, (in some cases) ancient and possibly modern languages. Most of us, however (those with a living memory of this old-fashioned education are ever rarer), while we might admit to the quaintness of education as it was practiced before the interior life of the child had been discovered and exalted, would be dismissive of this strictly hierarchical style of education.
Educational theorists have, in more recent times, informed us that children are not to be instructed, but rather guided in their acquisition of knowledge. The inherent creativity of the child's mind must be treated with respect; it should never subjected to excessive rigor, lest the child's spirit should somehow be harmed, or even extinguished. Teachers must seek to "motivate" their students by providing an underlying rationale for learning a subject, by appealing to their imagination as well as to their reason. Rote learning has been called into question, and if it is not possible to avoid memorization altogether, the tediousness of memorizing multiplication tables, chemical symbols, and so forth must be addressed by applying "creative" methods. Students write on subjects they find appealing (grammar is seldom taught as a separate subject any longer); they also select a good deal of their reading based on interest. If books are assigned, care is taken that they should possess some inherent appeal to the student.
In the contemporary view, the child's mind is a temple to which educators must show a devotion bordering on the dogmatic. The teacher is not an absolute authority, but an "educational leader" with a strictly provisional hold over his or her classroom.
I am aware that in France, there has recently been a backlash against contemporary educational practices (which they call, with some contempt, "pedagogy", so as to distinguish the child-centered approach from what its detractors view as truly substantive education). This dissent has firmly entered the public debate on education in that country. For all the debate in this country on how to reform education, we, on the other hand, hear few lasting arguments that might call pedagogy into question. The child in our society, for better, but so very often for worse, holds a place of outsized importance. We could never again subject children to rigorous 'top-down' instruction lacking in creative amenities. Children are our equals in some respects, maybe even our betters. Pedagogy is the foundation of our American educational thought.
While the contemporary child's experience of school may be more pleasant, in many cases, than it was a hundred years ago, by any number of measures American students leave school less well educated than their forbears (even allowing for the great advances in knowledge of the intervening years). The ability to write a pleasing, grammatical letter, to read a map with confidence, to compute by hand, to speak of literature in a knowledgable way, to make a coherent oral argument -- all of these skills were once possessed by many citizens of modest upbringing. Beyond the elite level of society, very few Americans can apply any of the aforementioned skills with competence anymore.
In the ongoing American debate on education, one sees a kind of circular motion of blame: adminsistrators complain of teacher's unions and their arcane work rules; teachers blame a fractured society for creating students who are unable to learn, or who lack interest in learning; parents say public schools are underfunded and chaotic; public commentators say school systems are self-protecting fiefdoms more interested in creating employment than upholding standards. All of these arguments may be justified. However, lacking a commitment to address them, we will make only halting progress in solving the many problems that face American public education. And what we will never see, it is safe to say, is a serious questioning of our "pedagogical" teaching methods. Our society is convinced that the exercise of pure authority in the classroom is inherently suspect, and that erudition need not be the principal goal of education. The "process" of learning is more important than the acquisition of knowledge and skills, it seems. Until we bring ourselves around to exactly the opposite view, our educational system will remain inadequate.
