American Education: Are we learning from our past mistakes?

Currently, our society finds itself in the midst of a debate about our public schools. We are constantly bombarded with reports about our failing educational system, evidenced by the high drop out rate and by our students’ inability to compete with the subject area competence of students from other countries, which has been rendered significantly more important by our current global economy.  This debate may sound familiar to supercentenarians, who lived through a very similar one at the turn of the 20^th century. Those of us of younger generations may not realize that at that time, there was much public outcry about the direction our public schools needed to take as a response to the changing global climate created by industrialism.

As a response to this outcry, in the early 1900’s, John Dewey founded the American movement of “progressive education,” which seems to share the tenants of our modern day learner-centered ideology and scholar-academic ideology introduced by Schiro (2008).  Dewey believed that “human knowledge should be linked to practical social experience” (full text available: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-2-life-in-schools/john-dewey-on-progressive-education) in contrast to traditional models of “book-based learning.” He advocated that schools be organized into “embryonic societies”, through which students were exposed to miniature models of our society and learned through experience rather than lecture.

This approach afforded two main educational benefits 1) learning became relevant to the students’ everyday lives and 2) units of study were presented in a functional, applicable manner. For example, students learned math through construction and cooking. Dewey believed that simply preparing students for the distant end goal of completion, as is inherent in the traditional model, does nothing to motivate them. He felt that it was more important to provide current, relevant lessons to make students more productive in society. (Kleibard 2004)

Dewey sought to use the students’ interests as springboard to delve into other areas of study. However, he was not a proponent of tailoring the curriculum to every student’s individual strengths and interests, as is prevalent in modern education today. Currently, models that are held as best practice, such as Universal Design for Learning, advocate that teachers should play up the strengths of each individual student and class in order to maximize student learning (http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent). Additionally, state law and federal regulations require that the education of students with disabilities focus on their strengths in the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and transition plan. In Michigan, there is also an option for students who are unable to complete the Michigan Merit Curriculum to receive a Personal Curriculum, which leads to a diploma and to equal post-secondary opportunities, or a Certificate of Completion, which will allow access to limited post-secondary opportunities.

Certainly, it holds that students will be more motivated to learn if they are successful in their education, thereby making it inherently important for students’ strengths to be highlighted in the classroom. The current educational climate forces schools to educate all students, even those who are unmotivated and do not wish to complete high school, risking punishment in the form of lost funding if all students are not successful. Therefore, it is highly important that teachers use every tool available to them, especially highlighting students’ strengths to increase success and bolster confidence.

But, it is not right that all students are forced into a curriculum that is focused on college readiness. A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post holds that the diminishing importance of high school isolates kids who are not going to college, by making them feel unsuccessful in the curriculum and “poisons the well” of education with bad attitudes and negativity. President Obama agrees that not all students should attend college, but does feel that everyone should receive some sort of post secondary training to better prepare themselves for today’s workforce and competition on a global scale (http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/college-for-all-obamas-higher-education-agenda-part-3-of-8/31832). This push is evidenced by the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards, which “are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.”

It is of the utmost importance that our schools successfully educate all students. In today’s economy, that does not mean that all students should attend traditional four-year colleges. But, it does mean that students should leave high school prepared for their intended career path, which is not currently being accomplished with the college readiness focus of our curriculum. The push to educate students to compete in a global society is not new, but the answers to how this should be accomplished are vastly different than were previously available.

Introduction Week Reflection

Schiro (2008), holds that there are four schools of thought, or ideologies, that have developed in modern and historical educational pedagogy regarding the ultimate end goal of education: scholar academic ideology, social efficiency ideology, learner centered ideology and social reconstruction ideology. These four ideologies hold contrasting end goals of education. 

Scholar academics believe that the end goal of education is to impart the accumulated, specialized knowledge of the academic disciplines to students. Within this school of thought, there is a hierarchy of academic experts (e.g., researchers), those who disseminate the findings of the academic experts (e.g., teachers) and those who learn the subject (e.g., students).This model is seen in both K-12 and higher education within community colleges and universities.  (Schiro 2008)


In contrast, social efficiency theory holds that the end goal of education is to ensure that students become mature, fully functioning members of society. This model also contributes to curriculum development in K-12 programs (e.g., MiBLSi efforts), and often becomes the focus of education when students, especially those with cognitive disabilities, are seen as lacking the ability to succeed in higher education under a scholar academic model. (Schiro 2008)


Learner centered ideology is often seen in preschool curriculum models and some forms of non-traditional education (e.g., montessori schools). This model holds that students should grow and develop in accordance with their innate combination of strengths and weaknesses. This model contrasts with the previous two theories, in that it is not focused on imparting knowledge of a discipline nor with bettering the community as a whole; simply with benefitting the individual. (Schiro 2008)

Finally, social reconstruction ideology holds that the end goal of education is to repair society as a whole by refining our values and beliefs based on mistakes made previously by society. Subscribers to this theory hold that our current society is inherently flawed and will not survive unless our current difficulties are improved upon by education. (Schiro 2008)

It is impossible to state that any of these four models holds the key to education. Rather, I would argue that the end goal of education should incorporate tenants of each model. Ultimately, education should focus on strengthening both the weaknesses and strengths of the individual students in order to benefit the individual as well as society. Through this hybrid model, students should receive instruction in order to become as proficient as possible within each of the academic disciplines and they should also receive instruction that will benefit their social and emotional behaviors. It goes without saying that curriculum should be continually improved upon in order to avoid repeating the previous mistakes of society.

When discussing the end goals of curriculum, it behooves the consumer to consider who should have the authority to decide the curriculum content in public schools. Should parents have influence? Should administrators, teachers, academic scholars or politicians have the most influence? Additionally, who should have the final say to resolve disputes about controversies in curriculum?

Ultimately, I believe content decisions should be a combined effort. Currently, politicians are elected by parents, teachers and administrators and they are charged with the duty to represent the beliefs of the public. In an ideal world, these politicians could be trusted to represent their constituents with fidelity, and therefore develop curriculum with significant influence from the research findings of academic scholars. Although flawed, this seems to be the best way for the interests of all parties to be fairly represented.


Throughout history, and especially in recent times, there have been debates regarding the content of curriculum. Parents have most often challenged school districts regarding content that is seen as contrary to religious beliefs (e.g., evolution) or content that may have religious connotations (Stolzenberg 1993). Given that public education is provided by the government, the judicial system has been given the ultimate decision power. Judicial decisions are handed down after significant consideration of research and precedent. Provided that government officials do as they are charged and represent the beliefs and opinions of the majority of constituents with fidelity, this is the correct solution. 


Even when curriculum decisions and disputes are resolved by impartial parties and conform to the interests of the majority, it is an impossible task for public education to conform to the beliefs of every family. Therefore, parents who do not agree with mainstream curriculum content decisions retain the right to withdraw their children from public education. 


Sources: 


Schiro, S. 2008. The Curriculum Ideologies. Curriculum Theory (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing).


Stolzenberg, N. 1993. He Drew a Circle that Shut Me Out. Harvard Law Review 106 (3): 581-667.