Time for a Synthesis

In the long battle over just what sort of education the public schools should provide, few voices are more reasonable than that of Professor Paul Woodring of Western Washington College of Education (TIME, Oct. 12, 1953). In his latest book (A Fourth of a Nation; McGraw-Hill, $4.50) Woodring takes a hard look at both the educationists and their critics, offers a sensible compromise of his own. The so-called "new education" that developed out of the progressive revolt of the '20s and '30s, says he, "can no more survive unchanged in the second half of this century than the classic thesis in the first half; the time has come for a new synthesis."

While the progressive movement began as a healthy revolt, it gradually degenerated into a sterile orthodoxy. Instead of daring to criticize one another, educators spent their time seeing who could be more progressive than whom. "If one questioned the value of studying Latin grammar, a second would question the value of English grammar as a formal discipline, and a third would top both by saying that it made no difference whether a child spoke or wrote English so long as he was able to communicate."

Morale v. Achievement. "Learning by doing"--a sound slogan at first--often came to mean concentrating on any activity provided it was not intellectual. Self-discipline sometimes meant no discipline at all, the emphasis on individual differences did away with objective standards, the stress on cooperation frequently turned out to be conformity to one's "peer group," and the idea that the school must educate the "whole child" led the school to take on all sorts of responsibilities that properly belong to the family. Perhaps the most debilitating doctrine of all is the notion that the child must be protected from competition. The result: morale became more important than achievement.

On the other hand, says Woodring, critics who would correct these faults by turning back the clock are as badly mistaken as those who insist that all goes well with the school. True enough, "the classic thesis has many of the essential characteristics of a sound philosophy of education; yet, in a very real sense, it has failed to meet the challenge of the 20th century. It either could not, or did not, effectively cope with the problems presented by the extension of universal public education up through the high school. By ignoring all psychological findings regarding the nature of the learner and the learning process, it cut itself off from an important and valuable source of information; and it gave insufficient attention to the problem of individual differences."

Opportunity with Responsibility. In framing a new philosophy of education, the U.S. should not rely primarily on liberal arts professors, few of whom "have ever faced the problem of providing a proper education for a fourth-grader with an IQ of 80." Nor should the nation lean on the educationists, for most of them are not the sort of educational philosophers that are needed. Just where such philosophers would come from no one can say, but, says Woodring, the people themselves "have developed their own unique view of the role of the schools." Though never stated in any complete or coherent form, this view "is based upon our concept of freedom and opportunity for all, and upon our conviction that the individual must accept a large measure of responsibility for his own development and his own behavior. It accepts the principle of competition and the right to enjoy the fruits of individual accomplishment. It holds the state and the schools supported by the state responsible for assuring equal opportunity for the young, not for guaranteeing equality of ultimate achievement."

What should be the aim of education?

No one will find it, says Woodring, by studying the long catchall lists of objectives drawn up by the educationists. These lists include everything from the three Rs to "friendship" and "efficiency in buying," but nowhere do they assign priorities on

what should come first. The proper aim

of education in a free society, says Woodring, can be summed up in a phrase: "to prepare the individual to make wise decisions." All that is taught in the school--whether history or science, philosophy or mathematics--is a means to this end.

No Sacred Laws. With such a definition; much of the trivia and confusion now rampant in the schools would be eliminated. Such skills as reading, for instance, are obviously indispensable in making wise decisions, but basket-weaving is something else again. "Social adjustment, in the sense of 'getting along with people,' or conformity, is not an educational aim. An education must include learning how to choose when it is best not to conform, and when one should differ." The fact, says Woodring, is that education must be primarily intellectual, for "all choice is intellectual."

Though the school must consider individual differences, it is nonsense to eliminate competition--so noisily encouraged in athletics--from academic work. It may be wrong to expose a dull child to repeated failure by making him work with pupils much brighter, but he certainly ought to be allowed to compete with equals. Instead of grouping children by age, they should be grouped according to ability. It is time that the schools get over the notion that a child functions best only within his age group, that grouping by ability is undemocratic, and that there is something wrong about letting a student advance as fast as he is able.

A Science and an Art. Indeed,"says Woodring, the whole system of education with its eight years of elementary school, four years of secondary school and four years of college, should be drastically revised. "Elementary education does not require eight years; secondary education can start at twelve as logically as at 14. At 16, an adolescent has a mental age about as high as it will ever be, and if he is ever to be able to begin higher education he may as well start it then."

The Woodring ideas, once adopted, would mean a complete reform of teacher education, but they would not mean eliminating professional training entirely, for contrary to what some critics say, teaching is a science as well as an art. It does not mean that the school should ignore individual differences, but it does mean getting rid of the fetish of the "whole child," which so often subverts subject matter. Finally, it means restoring the intellectual integrity and repudiating once and for all the dangerous doctrine that the schools should "build a new social order." That doctrine not only leads to .propaganda; it neglects the major function of education as conserver and transmitter of a heritage.

"Though it at first seems a contradiction in terms," says Woodring, "it is clear that only a conservative education can be truly liberating and can properly prepare the student to make wise choices of his own."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.