John Deweys Educational Reforms - Essay Example

Running Head: JOHN DEWEY John Dewey [The [The of the John Dewey People must be persuaded that the social order ultimately serves their long-range interests and that this interest harmonizes with the common good. Specific laws and customs are justified in so far as they provide for the common good. They are subject to continuous inquiry and revision. However, the general standard is constant because it provides the frame-work for a human community to exist in the first place. Dewey sought to reconcile the importance of critical inquiry with the requirements of social duty. Since human beings are naturally interdependent, the individual, as individual, does not establish the demands for moral action or the final principles of value. The community as a whole, through formal laws and customs, codifies behavior that ultimately commits individuals to a specific course of action. Such predictable actions are required for community life. The schools function as socializing agencies, internalizing the child's recognition of social duties and the will to carry them out. Dewey insisted that social ties, like the parent-child relationship, are natural. The mutual responsibilities corresponding to these specific stations are therefore intrinsic and binding. By nurturing the social spirit of the child, an habitual disposition to act out of social service and for the common good will becomes manifest. Pursuit of self-advantage and infidelity to one's social responsibilities is a primary evil according to Dewey. Freedom and social responsibility are not incompatible. Social authority is natural and inevitable, not a necessary limitation on personal freedom. Throughout his writings, Dewey retained the Hegelian insight that man achieves human qualities and fulfillment by participating in the enhancement of community life. Individuals should identify the social good as their own true good by perceiving the values and common interests that bind people together. Their freedom and happiness ultimately depend upon it. Individuals should obey the law even if they do not immediately desire to do so. Not fear of punishment, but a generalized altruistic sense should motivate a democratic citizenry. Dissenters should be tolerated, for they are a vital instrument of social progress. However, in advocating policy changes, they must persuade others voluntarily. The burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate how a specific law or practice fails to serve the common good. Dewey's theory of democracy was designed to reconcile freedom with authority, social stability with the need for reform, and universal standards with specific circumstances. He substantively refined Lockean individualism, which is popularly associated with the modern liberal tradition. Dewey comprehensively applied these insights to the reform of education. Once again, many critics mistakenly identify him with the radical, subjectivist approach of progressive education. Dewey denounced the progressive educator's romantic fetish for the "natural child." The child-centered school provided no standards at all; logically it culminated in anarchy. Proper teacher authority and a well-structured curriculum were indispensable. Dewey argued that, "to fail to assure them guidance and direction is not merely a permit to operate in a blind and spasmodic fashion, but it promotes the formation of habits of immature, undeveloped, and egoistic activity." (Dewey, 1930) Indulging a child's selfish whims would lead to an arrest of growth and the disintegration of personality. The development of mental powers follows certain laws of growth. The fact that a child might desire something does not mean that it is in fact desirable. That judgment can be determined only after critical reflection. (Dewey, 1929) The glorification of the spontaneous and immediately enjoyable also stunted the child's capacity to understand contemporary social life. These students were not socially responsible or cognizant of the forces of industrial civilization. While progressive schools might randomly stimulate artistic orientations, they were largely sandboxes for private consumption. Dewey castigated their students' impertinence and disrespect for the rights of others. Far from endorsing permissive education, Dewey's educational reforms provide a microcosm for his ideal democratic community. National unity purchased by instigating fears of foreign invasions was a "remedy of despair." Dewey testified before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs. While opposing compulsory military training as contrary to American ideals, he did endorse a voluntary plan. The schools could perform a significant role in social preparedness. Refusing to blame Woodrow Wilson for the aloofness of America toward the war, Dewey held that the entire tradition of no entangling alliances reflected an educational curriculum that isolated America from European affairs. The United States and Europe were part of the same world that now was becoming more tightly connected due to industry and commerce. A new way of teaching history could become "an infinitely greater factor in national preparedness than a few hours of perfunctory drill." (Dewey, 1916) American history was largely a reflection of European movements and problems. Critical thought, not eulogized mythology, would assist democratic control over social problems both at home and abroad. After the United States formally entered the war, Dewey outlined one means through which students and teachers could aid the war effort. In the first of his Columbia War Papers written for the government, Dewey proposed that students and teachers serve their country by joining the depleted work force on the farm to increase the nation's food supply. This constructive patriotism would conscript the young in the universal battle against nature. It was not a product of European militarism but distinctively American. According to Dewey "all can join without distinction of race and creed or even previous sympathy. It is service not only for our country and for countries on whose side we are fighting, but a service to the whole world when peace shall again dawn." (Dewey, 1917) This proposal seemed designed to attract alienated peace groups to a common cause. Earlier Jane Addams had advocated similar measures. In adopting the mantle of generalized social critics, scholars oftentimes judge the world through their peculiar tastes and sensibilities. Instead of practicing their professional discipline, political enthusiasms sweep away any elementary sense of caution and objectivity. Yet, Dewey recognized that a retreat from liberal education into narrow specialization held additional dangers. How could academics reconcile intellectual and political responsibility This issue is crucial in Dewey's career. Insulation from political power could ferment alienation and political irresponsibility. Total immersion in government and competitive policies might undermine objectivity. A healthy democracy requires a sensitized equilibrium between scholars as a cloistered leisure class and servants of society. While initially optimistic that educational reform could function as the basis for social reform, Dewey gained the seasoned recognition that the mating of ideas and social action was an agonizingly protracted process. (Dewey, 1938) Social Frontier, the journal of progressive education, included articles by noted communists but remained intellectually autonomous. George Counts, the editor, steered the journal toward popular frontism during 1936 and 1937. The journal opposed a charter revocation of the communist-dominated New York local of the American Federation of Teachers. (Dewey, 1937) It argued that there was no hope for genuine education under a capitalist system. Political reform was the first responsibility of progressive educators; they could not be neutral in the class struggle. While Dewey agreed that teachers were not only responsible for intellectual growth but also for promoting democratic values, to adopt the class struggle motif for political action was tantamount to Marxism-Leninism. He urged action based upon a "social" rather than a "class" outlook -- a perspective that would accept the democratic idea as the frame of reference. The Marxist approach, on the other hand, would intensify class consciousness and warfare. Schooling would become an instrument of propaganda and indoctrination. Since Dewey also supported an alliance of teachers and workers, John Childs confessed that he failed to comprehend any operational difference between utilizing a "class" or "social" viewpoint. The differences, however, were quite substantial. (Dewey, 1936) References Dewey, John: Enlistment for the Farm (New York: Division of Intelligence and Publicity of Columbia University, 1917), p. 5. Dewey, John: "Democracy and Educational Administration", School and Society (April, 1937):459. Dewey, John: "How Much Freedom in the Schools", The New Republic (July 9, 1930): 205. Dewey, John: Experience and Education (New York: MacMillan Co., 1938), 91 Dewey, John: The Quest for Certainty (New York: Milton, Balch & Co., 1929), p. 266. Dewey, John: Class Struggle and the Democratic Way, SF (May, 1936):241-42. Dewey, John: "The Schools and Social Preparedness", NR (May 6, 1916):15-16. Read More