Ten years ago, an American professor wrote 'The Closing of the American Mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students' (Alan Bloom, Simon and Schuster, 1987).
This was a devastating indictment of the American education system. Bloom demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of abandoning belief in 'true truth' or absolute values. But what about the situation in Britain? What philosophical assumptions lie behind our education system? Progressive educational philosophy was a reaction against 'repressive' traditional teaching techniques, such as rote-learning, whole class teaching, and streaming. The 'child-centred' approach advocated methods taking account of individual needs.
For some time there has been a reaction against progressive practice, and calls for a return to more traditional methods which have intensified with the advent of a new government. But such calls sometimes founder on the simple reality that many teachers are themselves the products of the progressive classrooms of the 1960s and 70s and on a dogmatic refusal to countenance selective schooling or streaming. The political and philosophical insistence on 'equality' has meant in practice the 'dumbing down' of educational standards.
Origins
Progressive education has its roots in the ideas of such thinkers as:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78). Rousseau had a profound influence on modern education. His ideas led to the glorification of all that is natural and spontaneous, and the vilification of competition. His book 'Emile' depicted the idyllic childhood of a boy unconstrained by the horrors of formal education. It should be noted that Rousseau, the great authority on childhood, had no first hand knowledge of or interest in children. Indeed, he forced his mistress to abandon all five of their children in a Paris orphanage. (Paul Johnson: The Intellectuals London, 1988, p.21.)
Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852). Froebel was a German educationalist who emphasised that the primary function of school was to encourage the natural development of each child. Freedom and play were central.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian psychoanalyst. The popularised version of his theory of repression filtered into modern life as a reluctance by parents and teachers to 're-press' children: hence great attention to the feelings and 'rights' of children. Discipline could now be seen as oppressive and dangerous.
John Dewey (1859-1952) was enormously influential in educational philosophy in the United States, and also in Britain. He rejected the idea that knowledge is absolute: a 'given' which can be passed on. He did not believe in God-given absolutes. He advocated a 'circular philosophy that began with man and ended with man'; he was indeed an architect of humanism as far as the education system was concerned. Dave Breese, Seven Men Who Rule The World From The Grave, Amersham, 1991. p.163.) Truth is 'true for me' or 'true for you.'
Carl Rogers (1902-1987) the American psychologist was another influential figure. For Rogers, the individual's own experience is the ultimate authority. This is the basic idea behind 'non-directive counselling.' Encounter groups were encouraged, where self-fulfilment is the goal. The results were often devastating: as one could well imagine when self is unleashed, then all manner of evils are unleashed too. Rogers himself came to have real qualms about the movement he had triggered off. But the idea that the legitimate source of authority is within oneself has taken hold even within large sections of the church. When applied to the school situation this translates into a rejection of the idea of the teacher as an 'authority.'
Children are to explore, create, discover: above all to fulfill themselves. The most pernicious modern manifestation of Rogers ideas is the 'Values clarification' method used in personal and moral education. This is based on the notion that there are no right or wrong values. Children are to be helped to discover their own values. If the basis of 'child-centred' teaching was 100% demonstrably false, then it would never have gained such widespread credence. Of course good teachers should involve the children; there should be a happy learning atmosphere, creativity should be encouraged and so forth. There is much that is attractive about the new philosophy.
Fatal flaws
But the foundation of this 'child-centred' educational philosophy is flawed in two ways. Firstly, these thinkers shared an optimism about human nature which is incompatible with the Christian understanding of original sin. The assumption is that children are innately good, and that it is 'repression' whether by parents or teachers which damages them.
Secondly they assume (dangerously and ultimately destructively) that there is no absolute truth, which can be passed down in dogmatic form. Education is centred in the experience of the child: in other words existentialism has entered the heart of our education system.' Instead of authority being located 'out there' in a body of knowledge handed down through the centuries, we have repositioned it 'in here' within each child. (Melanie Phillips, All Must Have Prizes, Little, Brown and Company, 1996. paperback. £9.99. p.28. )
They are being abandoned to disorder, incoherence and flux! They are given the message that there is no right and wrong. Those who criticise people who are 'obsessed with the right answer' are (probably unwittingly) the mouthpieces of this new, destructive philosophy of moral relativism.
Alongside the development of a child-centred philosophy of education the idea developed that education was the means to achieve a classless society. Dewey was adamant that his vision of education would herald true 'democracy' i.e. equality. (Dewey: Father of Childcentredness. Tape by A. O'Hear, from The Christian Institute, Eslington House, Eslington Terrace, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4RF). The purpose of education was now social engineering rather than the transmission of knowledge. All inequalities were to be ironed out through the introduction of comprehensive, preferably mixed ability teaching.
Are the methods working?
There is abundant evidence to show that there has been a catastrophic decline in educational standards in Britain over the past 30 or so years. But when the educational establishment is confronted with evidence of its own failure, it blames everything but the teaching methods and philosophy it has promoted and which have caused the decline. There are schools which do not have sufficient resources. But a far greater problem is the use of methods which have been shown to be unsuccessful. It has been argued that whole-class teaching is about four times as effective as dividing a class into groups, which, in turn is about four times as effective as individual learning schemes. (John Marks, Value for Money in Education: Campaign for Real Education, 18 Westlands Grove, Stockton Lane, York YO1 2HU.) Streaming is also far more effective than mixed ability groups.
A study showed that Zulu children in a poor area near Durban, South Africa, taught in a traditional way, performed better at spelling than sixth formers in a middle class area of the English Home Counties where progressive methods were promoted. Resources were not the issue. (Jennifer Chew, Spelling Standards and Examination Results, Campaign for Real Education, address as above.)
In 1985 Leeds City Council began a massive funding programme for its 230 primary schools. The total injection of funds was £4 million. A major research programme has concluded that this was a costly failure. Reading scores showed no improvement, even some decline. (Report team led by Prof. Robin Alexander of Leeds University.
'All must have prizes' is, of course, a quotation from Alice in Wonderland: everyone started the race when they liked, and finished when they liked, and at last the Dodo said: "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." But it is also the title of a powerful new book by the columnist Melanie Phillips (details above).
She analyses the Alice-in-Wonder-land absurdity of many of the current orthodoxies in progressive educational philosophy. She begins with examples of the landslide in standards. She argues that 'the retreat from grammar is a phenomenon that underpins much of the crisis in modern language teaching. It stems from the belief that children pick up the codes of language by a kind of osmosis, and that to teach them these codes explicitly can actually do them harm. Its jargon term is the 'communicative' or 'direct' method of teaching' (p.8).
This method was popular on the continent in the 1950s, but rejected because it didn't work (p.11). She demonstrates at length that the subject that has suffered most from the collapse of the authority of rules is mathematics.
Phillips charts the sorry tale of the Conservative government's moves to introduce standard testing and a National Curriculum. These were efforts to halt the landslide of declining standards. But the government placed this problem into the hands of the very 'experts' whose educational philosophy was responsible for the decline! The government wanted basic objective tests, by which parents and others could know how children were performing: 'pencil and paper' tests. That is precisely what the educational establishment did not want: such an objective scheme of testing would mean that some children would be 'labelled failures'. So methods of standard testing were created that were breathtakingly complex, virtually incomprehensible, and seemingly designed to sink a longsuffering teaching profession under a mound of administration. In other words they were well nigh unworkable.
But it was the educational establishment who devised this byzantine system, admitting that it would inevitably need to be slimmed down in time (pp.159-164).
In the meantime it has been the teachers and pupils who have suffered.
Wider effects of relativism
There have been predictable squeals of protest at this provocative analysis. But many things Phillips is saying are vitally important, and her onslaught on relativism is timely. Her book should be read by all who are concerned about education, but it is of wider relevance.
She also attacks the false notion of licence and libertinism which has corrupted the ideal of liberalism. Notions of 'right and wrong' have been flung overboard, and condemned as authoritarian. She argues that 'the collapse of external authority that lies at the heart of the breakdown in education has also caused the disintegration of the traditional family and the erosion of discipline and social bonds between the generations'.
All Must Have Prizes seems to be painting an almost apocalyptic vision of barbarians at the gates. But the evidence is there; the arguments are cogent, and the situation is critical. Christians may call for more spiritual or moral content to be included in the curriculum; but we are rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship if we ignore the fatal flaws at the very foundation of modern education.
Sharon James has taught in several schools in the UK, including comprehensive schools and a sixth form college, she taught for two years in a rural secondary school in Malawi, and has been head of department in a boys' independent school. She is now a parent governor of the primary school where her son attends.
Home
Archives
Subscriptions
Adverts
Find a church
About us
Contact us
Site Map
Printable