Experience And EducationEssay Preview: Experience And EducationReport this essayEveryone who is part of a post-secondary university institution (both students and faculty) has succumbed to the formalized schooling system. We have been enculturated in an environment that prizes the prestige of higher education, often with an undertone suggesting that post secondary schooling is a necessary step on the road to success. This experience is flooded with order. Schedules are central to any regular day at school, and the docimological process determines ones success in how well they have learned the material of each subject. Both John Dewey and John Taylor Gatto write about dichotomies within the schooling system. While Dewey contemplates traditional versus progressive schooling, Gatto suggests that the current system is too regimented, and that an increase in student freedom would lead to a more positive learning environment. The concepts of freedom and education will thus be examined with regard to both Dewey and Gattos respective ideological orientations.
Perhaps a fundamental distinction must be made between schooling and education. These two terms are often (and mistakenly) used interchangeably. Education can occur at any place or time; it can be independent of schooling. As suggested by Stanley Aronowitz, “Education may be defined as the collective and individual reflection on the totality of life experiences: what we learn from peers, parents (and the socially situated cultures of which they are a part), media, and schools” (2004:21). Schooling, on the other hand, suggests a formalized setting within the confined walls of a school, led by a teacher or professor who is supposedly qualified to relay information to students. Yet, there is the common assumption that education necessarily takes place within the site of a school (ibid). When Dewey speaks of education, it is in fact paralleled with what would be considered formalized schooling, as it is primarily tied to structured activity within the school seting. Gatto affirms the issue discussed by Aronowitz, as he suggests that school training is not education (2005:51). In other words, Gatto believes that schooling actually inhibits education.
Deweys ideas stem from binary opposites. Within the school system this dualism is seen through traditional and progressive schooling (17). The traditional system consists of information that has been formulated in the past; the schools (and teachers) are thus a means for this information to be conveyed to younger generations. This is achieved through what Dewey terms patterns of organization. They provide the systematic foundations of an orderly environment, one which provides the optimal circumstances for a teacher to instruct. The traditional system is perceived as a top-down approach. Stratification between adults teaching, and the children learning in schools, thus inhibits the ability of students to partake in greater amounts of active participation (19). The progressive school system, or the new education, germinates from dissatisfaction with traditional education. The new philosophy of education suggests that a direct relationship be made between experience and education. These terms, however, are not always experienced in conjunction with one another. Experiences may or may not be educative. Dewey makes note that departure from the traditional system would not be easy, nor perhaps would it be a desirable task:
the point I am making is that rejection of the philosophy and practice oftraditional education sets a new type of difficult educational problem for thosewho believe in the new type of education. We shall operate blindly and inconfusion until we recognize this fact; until we thoroughly appreciate thatdeparture from the old solves no problems (25).It thus remains an issue that while the traditional system is criticized in its top-down methods, nor does the progressive approach rectify all problems within the schooling system.
Dewey outlines two fundamental principles in education – interaction and continuity. These principles are intricately connected. Citizens on a daily basis are subject to a high degree of social control (Dewey 1997:52). The control of any action is dependent upon the situation. In the traditional education system, social control is imposed by the institution, and by individual teachers within each classroom. The rules within formalized schooling settings dictate how students will behave (listening when a teacher is speaking, raising a hand to make a comment, etc.). Within the progressive schools, social control would occur in such a way that everyone has the opportunity to contribute and feel responsibility (ibid:56).
In connecting the notion of social control with Gatto, he suggests television and schooling control childrens lives (2005:25). In highlighting this point, he states that, “The truth is that schools dont really teach anything except how to obey orders” (ibid:21). Through this we can see that the experience of traditional schooling is greatly embedded with social control. A huge difference in life is experienced between a person who is being sucked into the confinements of school, or a person who is able to avoid that trapping (ibid:51). The fourth of Gattos seven lessons is emotional dependency. Rights can be given or taken from students by the authority figure (the teacher) and students are unable to appeal them, as these rights do not exist for them within the school system (ibid:6). Likewise, the fifth lesson, intellectual dependency, is a form of social control whereby students wait for instruction from teachers before commencing with their work. He states, “This is the most important lesson of them all: we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives” (ibid:7). Those who deviate from what the schooling institution orders or teaches are thus punished. And in the United States, according to Gatto, there is one perceived right way to grow up (ibid:68).
Both Dewey and Gattos notions of traditional schooling techniques achieve social control by virtue of rigid boundaries. It is through these restrictions that students are bound (metaphorically, not literally) to the curriculum within schools, and the operations of these institutions. This being the case, we might draw a parallel from Deweys traditional education and Gattos seven lessons, to that of an Orwellian orientation. Gatto argues that the seven lesson school is a disaster. It will continue to expand unless the public takes action to inhibit the government monopoly schooling (Gatto 2005:18). In an Orwellian sense, the contemporary institution of schooling exercises a great deal of control over young children who will be the future
[…]
As I have stated, in a contemporary sense, the education provided by Dewey schools is so poorly designed that it should be considered a failure in its own right. As Gatto says, “[E]very one can argue that any single school, with two grades and an emphasis on ‘learning by the book,’ is an effective public policy. But one must consider the role social influences play in shaping the way that children learn. As some school system leaders had observed one of Dewey’s methods, by taking one particular student, who later moved to another, ‘saying what she wanted’ and ‘using her words,’ each child’s education system was transformed.” [Gatto 2005:18]
This sort of “public policy” seems to me to fall at the foot of a number of criticisms. One has to consider the school, Gatto holds up, in its infancy. In a “solution to the problem,” Dewey schools are considered to be an impediment, or an abomination in the eyes of the public, and would not have been developed would they have been. This is perhaps true of many of the “traditional” school systems, and some of the traditional institutions of traditional education. Nonetheless, some of these schools have managed to survive, even thrive, despite their critics’ efforts to limit their effectiveness.
For example, the one school in Oregon, for example, has never had any meaningful changes. Â It changed the way in which students were taught, changed how they learned, and, on top of the traditional, it moved that school from its pre-1940 days to the 1930s to serve only about 3% of its students (Gatto 1999:16-17). In contrast, the Seattle School District (SDS) has no significant change since 1964. In fact, it has more recently increased its performance from 25.2% to 30%. A number of major studies have documented the effects on both school-based and nonschool-based learning, including as many as 25-point changes that may not reflect individual variation between schools (Miller 2010:9-10). In one case, DSC is in the midst of the first wave of a successful new school (Crestwood). For some reason, the growth in K-12 performance has coincided with the dramatic shift in SDS’s educational goals. There is a growing consensus among those in the SDS community that the district’s growth would be significant, since most students have “been able to gain the skills you need.”
Another school at the forefront of the reform movement has always been the Seattle School District School Board. In its early 90s, Seattle’s most famous educator, John Denton, served on Seattle City Council during his short life. Denton grew up in the city and studied history and sociology and became one of Seattle’s leading experts on