Plato, Aristotle and Dewey response

The Allegory of the Cave (Plato) is something that I’ve thought about a lot since high school when I was first introduced to the idea.  I remember being a confident 16-year-old and thinking to myself that I was someone who had been to the cave’s entrance and experienced truth.  Since that time I’ve realized how much I continue to learn, not from a text, but from social interaction and new experiences outside of the classroom.  It’s demoralizing to know that as a student I’ve become so involved in school that I lose sight of my education: the specific knowledge and social skills needed to teach a successful PE/Health class.

Another thing Plato wrote about was a hierarchy of experience that begins with sight (I suppose it could be any of the senses) which led to belief, which led to thought which led to understanding.  When I read his description of this I thought of other education-related continuums such as Bloom’s taxonomy or Dale’s Cone of Experience.  I had not previously realized how critical Plato’s writing was to the birth of educational theory and practice.  As always, his ideas provide a unique link between ancient and modern thought.

In hindsight, I wish I had read the Dewey selection before Plato and Aristotle.  Dewey placed the Aristotle reading in a historical context which was helpful.  Obviously, Aristotle lived at a much different time from us when women and slaves did not have the same social rights as men.  Their educations were limited more to the “Mechanical” designation.  So, today our educational philosophy is governed by the framework of democracy which, I suppose, is one reason why we are enrolled in this course.  Interestingly enough, we still see a clear distinction between Mechanical (eg. tech schools) and Liberal (eg. mandatory humanities classes) education.  

As someone who focused on learning for leisure, I crave mechanical skills.  In that way, my education was a bit unbalanced.  For example, I would love to be able to build my own house but I’ve had no training.  What an interesting and useful skill!  That’s why I support adding more technical/artisan training to the current high school curriculum and allowing high school students to do apprenticeships.  In class last week someone mentioned how local districts are allowing students to pick a concentration in an effort to motivate students to see a purpose for their learning.  Based on some of the looks I saw in class, many of you did not agree with the idea.  But isn’t it a good idea to allow students to explore (not commit to) potential job prospects?  Doesn’t our economy need trained (at least partially-trained) workers?  Is it not the high school’s job to help prepare future workers? There are some students who would stay in high school if we could teach them a basic engineering or technical skill, and there are even more students who may get into college based on their interest and experience in a specific field. 

The purpose behind learning

Each selection explored the sole purpose of education and what should be included in the daily instruction, while arguing that only young males have the right to receive the same education. Times certainly have changed, that is true. However, today's society is not a replica of the past and we certainly have moved from using ancient knowledge to a more technical knowledge in the twenty-first century.

"Education takes for granted that sight is there but that it isn't turned the right way or looking where it ought to look, and it tries to redirect it appropriately", Plato argues in the first selection. This is the only argument that really has not changed over the centuries. However, the only question that any educator must ask themselves is: have my students taken the truth and turned it the right way? Meaning, have I reached them and actually seen the light bulb click in their minds.

Aristotle writes, "For men are by no means agreed about things to be taught, whether we look to excellence or the best life". He also makes the argument that music, gymnastics, reading, and writing, serves a purpose in the life of a child. Like Jefferson, Aristotle believed that "the citizen should be moulded to suit the form of government under which (s)he lives". This sums up the sole purpose in educating the youth, then and now.

"In the inherited situation, there is a curious intermingling, in even the same study, of concession to usefulness and a survival of traits once exclusively attributed to preparation for leisure", quotes Dewey. This quote can still be useful even today, even in a progressive world where high schools today are exposing adolescents to both kinds of learning. Unfortunately, since there is no longer a system of set courses for each student to take. It can be seen that for many, the question can be asked: "which type would benefit me the most?" and thus create an uneven balance in the modern educational system.

The Role of Individualism in Education

I realize after reading the various articles which explore the purpose of education, what the content of education should be and who should receive it, I have a strong value system that influences what I think is important. The development of the individual and maximizing that person’s capability is the prime importance. No one set of education system, set of courses of study, or prescribed determination of population that should receive liberal or mechanical education, is optimal.

Exposing individuals to the truth of the world is the only way educating can change the world for better. Plato’s cave analogy points to this. “Education isn’t…putting knowledge into souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes.” At another point he refers to the effective educator as turning the entire body toward truth. Plato explains that it is the leaders responsibility to go back in the cave and educate. In Aristotle’s article that education of the youth should be used to mold the society into what the government wants. He proposed one public education, which is the same for all. I don’t believe that a “one size fits all” approach can possible attain the quest for truth which education is to promote.

These articles also demonstrated the struggle in determining what courses should be included in education. Ultimately I agreed with the philosophy in Feinberg’s article regarding parents raising their children. I think it also applies to education. The parents are to give children opportunities and exposure to a wide variety of areas and exposure. Then according to the child’s interest and temperament, they will choose which careers and further education they will choose. This will provide the best results in today’s society. Plato’s use of the summoner and Aristotle’s determination that music is good for pleasure are just examples or artificial reasoning determined what knowledge is sought. . Expose individuals to the basics in music, reading, writing and arithmetic and let the individual interest determine how far the education goes.

The division of liberal versus mechanical education divides knowledge learned for the pure sake of the search for truth and knowledge derived for practical purposes. Each system of education addresses the needs of two different populations. I think both the education and populations are becoming unified and blended. As our population becomes more educated workers apply all sorts of knowledge into their practical skills. The use of science in farming has changed production forever. Since I have the ability to read and write I have continued my education in many areas such as finance and psychology that I use in the management of my household.. Dewey says that an education that unifies its members also unifies the society. I believe that this is happening in America today; our education system that empowers the individual is responsible for a country in which people can change economic and social class.

Another important announcement conerning the reading

In reviewing the essays you've been assigned for next week, I came to the realization that while the Plato (1), Aristotle (9), and Dewey essays work together nicely, the Feinberg (14) sticks out like a sore thumb. So, hold off on that one; I'll likely reassign it at a later date in the semester, so go ahead and read it if you like, but take care of the other three first.

A few announcements

First, I see that folks have already gotten started with posting and commenting. That's great! Just make sure you put titles and labels on your posts. Your title should just indicate what your post is about -- it could be anything you want. You can put as many labels on your post as you'd like, but make sure one of the labels is whatever category your post fits given the blog assignment (class summary, class reaction, reading reaction, other).

Second, I know that some of you are having trouble getting the Curren text. Kimberly, my GA, has copied all the readings for next week and placed them on reserve in the library. You can ask for them at the circulation desk or you can access them electronically. To access them electronically, you can go to the Course Reserves Page and search by my name or the course number.

Third, you can sign up to follow the blog using an RSS feed reader. That way, whenever anyone posts anything, you can keep track of it. Google offers one (that's what I use to keep track of this blog and all my other ones). Google reader is here, but you can find all sorts of other readers as well. To subscribe, simply click on the little orange button that shows up in the address bar on the right.

Tuesday night in class it was briefly discussed that some schools were considering not requiring students to take history classes.  It was also discussed how this would in turn affect student's abilities to make critical life decisions, like how to make an educated vote in a presidential election.  It seems to me that if one of our main goals as educators is to prepare students to live in a democracy, teaching them what a democracy is would be a pretty large part of that education.  What sort of citizens would we be preparing if all we taught them was English and math?  Yes, they would hopefully be literate and know how to balance their check books, but they would not have knowledge of how and why our country became a democracy and what that means to us as citizens.  How can we expect students to care about participating in democratic elections if they never understand why they are important?  As I thought about these things on my drive home I was shocked that educated individuals could even consider not requiring history classes for students.  

Later that evening I discussed the topic with my mom who is an eighth grade science teacher.  She agreed that history is very important to a  student's overall education.  She then brought up a point that I had not previously considered.  Even if students are required to attend the class, if they are not held accountable through assessment they may not learn as much as they should from the class.  What she proceeded to explain to me shocked me.  In Union County, North Carolina eighth grade students are only required to pass English, math and one of the following three courses: social studies, science or physical education.  Teachers may not give out failing grades either, the lowest grade they can give a student is a 60.  This has resulted in many eighth grade students showing a lack of effort and interest in their social studies and science classes.  They know that as long as they pass English, math and the requirements for physical education they will pass the eighth grade.  This posed a new problem for me, how can you make students realize that these things are indeed important even if they do not have to prove their comprehension through testing?    

      

Class Summary for 1/13 & 1/14

Our first class was spent going over the syllabus and course requirements, as well as some "get to know you" activities that included a biographical scavenger hunt. During the last half of the class, we discussed a general social/political framework for looking at schools. Elements of this framework included the following:

Progressive vs. traditional notions of purpose
Conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives on schooling

Traditional views on the purpose of schooling see schools as existing primarily to pass on the given culture to future generations. Schools exist to transmit the accumulated knowledge, acceptable behaviors, and desired values to children with the hope that the children will grow up to be largely like the past generations of adults. Such views emphasize continuity with the past.

Progressive views on the purpose of schooling see such a degree of continuity as problematic. They note that our current culture is fraught with problems (economic inequality, environmental degradation, racism) and are concerned that overly traditional views of schooling maintain these problems. Instead, progressives want to use schools to change our culture, resolving these problems through the education of the young.

Any given school policy or practice can be understood as existing in tension between these two general poles, although some policies or practices can contain elements of both (e.g. a content module on recycling that is assessed through traditional means like standardized tests).

Conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives roughly map onto the traditional-progressive continuum, with conservative being traditional and progressive falling somewhere between liberal and radical. These perspectives are general ways of seeing the role schools ought to play in our given social sphere; they are shorthand ways of discussing the relationship between schools, society, and the individual.

The conservative perspective is dedicated to free market economics. Under such economic theory, competition is key to economic and social growth. We become better (smarter, wealthier, fitter) through competing with others for limited physical and social resources. Society should be meritocratic -- social positions are filled by the people who have shown to be the best at those positions and rewards accrue according to individual skill at those positions, how essential that position is to the overall well-being of society, and the number of people capable of filling that position (it's supply and demand). The important unit for the conservative is the individual. Each individual is autonomous, rational, and should be treated as an entity unto themselves.
For the conservative, schools exist for two primary purposes:

1. To ensure the proper meritocratic distribution of social resources by providing equal access to educational resources. If everyone has the same access to education, it will really be the smartest and hardest working who will take the most advantage of what is given and rise to positions of leadership.
2. Further enable the meritocracy by being a meritocracy. That is, schools should reward those who work hard and are talented to further cultivate those individuals and to ingrain such habits in the young.

Social problems such as poverty are see as individual failures. People are poor because they made poor choices. People are uneducated because they didn't take advantage of what was offered. Thus, there is little the government can or ought to do to remedy these situations other than making sure everyone has equal access to educational opportunity.

The liberal perspective is similar to the conservative perspective in that it also believes that market capitalism is essential to growth. Liberals, however, note that the market produces undesirable moral consequences (the exploitation of some by others) and is prone to potentially ruinous fluctuation (recession and depression). Similarly, the liberal notes that historical circumstances have loaded certain groups with baggage that makes equal participation in the market difficult (the history of slavery and disenfranchisement of African-Americans). Thus, it's the government's role to eliminate the undesirable moral consequences, mitigate market fluctuations, and compensate groups who have historically been disadvantaged. Schools are a key ingredient for all three. Schools can be used as a key compensatory mechanism to ensure everyone has a level playing field in society. Through equal educational opportunity, groups are able to overcome their historical impediments and fully participate.

The radical perspective is skeptical of the free market approach. It notes that capitalism inherently results in the concentration of wealth and power, and that such concentration is overall negative for human and social growth. This concentration is negative because it allows a few individuals to "rig the game" so that their interests are prioritized over the interests of the majority. These interests become the norm -- they aren't seen as the interests of any particular group, but rather as "the right way to do things". Schools are a key way in which this occurs; they are, in effect, rigged. Poor students are sent to poor schools that lack the resources to properly educate students for anything other than the most ruidemntary social or economic positions, while students of wealthy parents attend schools with programs designed to get them into good colleges. Wealthy folks oppose policy changes (in the tax structure, say), that would equalize resources and give more opportunity to poor students because then those students would compete with the wealthy students for jobs and status. What's more, all schools serve to socialize students to acccept this differtation of wealth as "normal" and attribute the lack of success of poor students as individual failings rather than how the social and economic system is struuctured. While they generally favor similar policy postions as liberals, radicals believe many of our educational problems aren't just problems with schools, but rather problems with our overall social and economic strucure.