Parsing John Dewey

I spent some time today reading Democracy and Education by John Dewey, an American philosopher who has had a major influence on education in the United States. A proponent of progressive education theories, Dewey did most of his thinking and writing in the first half of the twentieth century.

Working my way through Dewey's fairly opaque prose, I discovered why this writer is still worth reading almost a century later. Dewey takes us back to first principles to describe the purpose of education as the means by which a society preserves itself. Consider this selection from section one of Democracy and Education:

The primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group determine the necessity of education. On one hand, there is the contrast between the immaturity of the new-born members of the group — its future sole representatives — and the maturity of the adult members who possess the knowledge and customs of the group. On the other hand, there is the necessity that these immature members be not merely physically preserved in adequate numbers, but that they be initiated into the interests, purposes, information, skill, and practices of the mature members: otherwise the group will cease its characteristic life. Even in a savage tribe, the achievements of adults are far beyond what the immature members would be capable of if left to themselves. With the growth of civilization, the gap between the original capacities of the immature and the standards and customs of the elders increases. Mere physical growing up, mere mastery of the bare necessities of subsistence will not suffice to reproduce the life of the group. Deliberate effort and the taking of thoughtful pains are required. Beings who are born not only unaware of, but quite indifferent to, the aims and habits of the social group have to be rendered cognizant of them and actively interested. Education, and education alone, spans the gap.

He goes on to champion what we consider today to be a core tenet of progressive education: The purpose of learning is to prepare young people to think critically for themselves and to participate in and enrich democracy. (Beware: it takes a fair amount of effort to parse Dewey, who never uses one word when he could use two.)

Dewey reminds us parents that formal education is important not only because it is the means by which our children acquire skills important to their future. It is important also because it is the means by which we collectively pass along our "aims and habits." It offers us the opportunity to consider which collective habits we might like to break — or which aims we might like to encourage the next generation to pay more attention to.

Education is "social engineering" whether we like to admit it or not. We are passing down our habits, hopes and fears. After reading Dewey, I think I'll ask some different kinds of questions at the next "Coffee and Questions" meeting with the principal at my children's school: "What societal habits are we trying to reinforce here? And what habits are we trying to break?

Comments

[Karen Holland]

I am pleased to find others as interested in all the various aspects of education (including theory).
Everyone has a theory or opinion, and it seems there is no one correct way to teach every child.
Children are unique treasures, every one, and should be treated as such from their beginnings. Regardless of who they belong to, they need support and don't always get it. Parents, teachers, administrators, boards, governors, etc... are not always there for our children, and this will affect our society/civilization.
Just look at what's happening: A 6 year old has a knife held up to him, teenagers abuse old people, ... what is the real reason for such behavior!
It seems that we can't reach every child and let them know what they need to know. We need them to care about themselves and each other, family, and school, people like them, and those who are different.
How many parents go out of their way to make friends from a different culture? What is there to fear? A student is different from the majority - are they made welcome, or chastised?
I propose Multicultural Literature at an early age. Including topics of sexual orientation, aging, gender, socioeconomics, etc (not just ethnicity) - those books are out there! No one should be afraid to use the books to teach kindness! Why is kindness looked down on? What's wrong with being nice?
I'd like to see teachers go beyond the "It's Martin Luther King Jr day" Let's read about him..." and extend the lessons to every day, and not just one of the topics (above) but all of them. They can be incorporated into any type of lesson with a little imagination.
And yes, I agree about the testing, and NCLB is a another topic of ill-repute!

[Dennis Blackmore]

Not sure where you get consumers out of private schools - parents do what is best for their children whether public or private. I think some private school grads have gone on to being very good citizens.

[Rick E. Britton]

The American demographic and social fabric is so diverse that it makes it almost impossible to teach children a consistent and coherent set of 'norms'. This is especially true in public school settings.

[Michelle Martin]

I'm excited to see John Dewey discussed in your blog. I wonder what he would make of the GreatSchool's reliance on standardized test scores as the only factor for the GreatSchool's rating. These tests don't measure students' ability to "think critically for themselves and to participate in and enrich democracy." Every time we use only test scores to rate or judge schools, we give those tests greater import and a greater role in forming our educational system. Of course it's expensive to use other more nuanced and rich measures but it is an imperative if we want to give our children nuanced and rich educations.

[colevalleymom]

Public schools create citizens. Private schools create consumers.