Where are our schools going? Does your school suck? Do your teachers care? A short look back at the history of schools shows us you're not alone!
From the early 1900s, the great education philosopher John Dewey was critical of the fact that schools were detatched from popular experience. He didn't want to see young people virtually chained to desks and forced to learn book knowledge that was meaningless in their daily and future lives. He was joined in his critique by many people, including Charles Beard and George Counts in the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Counts said that teachers were numbing students to political life, and making ignorant geniuses in schools. He wanted to see young people come out of schools fired up and excited to participate in civic life. But instead Counts said that teachers were killing enthusiasm for community, and challenged them to make classes more relevant.
In the 1960s and 70s this critisism was joined by a brand-new force in society: student activism. As never before, young people were organizing to tell the system they wanted change. Youth power, youth voice, and youth organizing were popular and effective. At the same time, a new surge of philosophy grew around schools. In the 60s John Holt wrote a book called "Escape from Childhood" in which he proposed giving young people the full rights of citizenship, and laid out a small manifesto detailing the real needs of children. He wrote another book called How Children Failed, created a newsletter called "Growing Without Schools," and almost singlehandedly created the homeschooling movement. In addition to Holt's voice, Neil Postman wrote a scathing analysis of the popular treatment of children called "The Disappearance of Childhood". He carefully details our North American understandings of the role of the child, how that is bad for kids, and how its disappearing. His commentary on schools revolves around its additional negativity towards the role of children.
Another set of powerful voices grew out of the 1970s, including Paulo Freire and Jonathan Kozol. Together with a group of educators and writers, they actually developed an entirely new tradition in education called critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is the deconstruction and analysis of educational practices for the sake of anti-oppressive learning and teaching.
In the 1980s and 90s the critisism continued, and grew. Voices including bell hooks, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux and others joined the mix, ready to throw down schools. As always, the voices of students grew louder. In Seattle, Washington, a group called "Student Activists for Multicultural Education" or SAME developed a mission statement that included the line "Organizing and mobilizing to bring about the fall of the oppressive regime we currently call "school". Their mission is clear, and adds to the growing sound-out against schools.So what does that mean for these times, and for write now? In 1998 Mary Griffith published a book called "The Unschooling Handbook." John Holt developed the term “unschooling” in the 1970s to describe the act of homeschooling, without the effects of school. The term now refers to the specific style of child-centered learning advocated by Holt. While many present-day North Americans have difficulty imagining that education can happen outside of school, Mary breaks it down and shows that many kids already DO learn without schools, and shows how many more SHOULD and can be doing the same.
Going back to our earlier discussion, until the 1850’s “common school” movement, school was mostly optional. Most knowledge children needed to become competent adults was acquired through doing tasks along with adults and knowing that this work was essential to their livelihood. Along with the establishment of public schools and compulsory attendance laws came a general belief that school was essential for children to become modern-day citizens, and that children weren't qualified to be involved until they'd completed school. There was little discussion about whether school was indeed an indispensable institution.
In a recent article in the Utne Reader the author, Craig Cox, boldly asserts that "the best work in America" is done by non-9-5 workers, consultants, and "free agents" in the business sectors. With that as a reasoning, he proposes that the experience of compulsory education be eliminated for young people who could "do better without it". By doing this, Cox says, we will reinvigorate learning, making it more relevant and meaningful for a large percentage of students. Schools that remain will be enticed to become more engaging, and businesses will flourish with newly educated labour. Cox proposes that the only losers in this scenario will be elite universities. Their reliance on "high achieving" students to pay their bills will have to end, and the value of their over-priced degrees will decrease.
While I have contentions with this perspective, I can't ignore Cox's point. The potential of some students to gain greater access to learning is higher this way, and the issue of applicability is vital. With this in mind, the issue begs the question- are schools dead? With so many philosophers and writers snorting about compulsory education, and so many statistics and evidence piling up against public schools, are we simply piling hay up against a burning barn by promoting "school reform"?
For too long governments in the United States and Canada took the critisism of businesses and communities without a grain of salt. Now that businesses have the balance of power in North America, schools must pay attention to them. But I am afraid that communities voices will loose out in the long run. The wishes of everyday people suddenly become irrelevant in the face of economic fortunes, at everyone's cost. What price will schools have to pay?
« return.