Over the last half century, there has been constant debate between "traditionalists" and "progressives" over basic educational philosophy. In the past decade, however, most of the critical writings have come from the later group. The writings of Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich, John Holt, Edgar Friedenberg and others have enjoyed nearly unanimous acceptance not only by book reviewers, but also by the foundations, state and federal education department officials and professors of education. The decade has, in fact, produced not a single well-known book opposing the major contention of these writers that schools are oppressive institutions which do harm to students. Thus, it is fair to view the "progressives" as comprising a new establishment in education.
Dr. Sidney Hook, Professor of Philosophy at N.Y.U. and leading exponent of the philosophy of John Dewey, observes that most of the new establishment critics of the schools "regard themselves as libertarians and humanists ... who profess themselves inspired to a considerable degree by the thought of John Dewey." In a newly published essay, John Dewey and His Betrayers (Copyright 1971, Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle, Illinois), Hook contrasts Dewey's philosophy with that of the new establishment.
The new establishment, Hook says, not only rejects the idea of "required courses and even area distribution studies as unendurable forms of faculty paternalism," but also sponsors the view that "since the student is the best judge of his own educational needs, it is tyrannical imposition from without to require him to take any courses that he thinks he does not need." The extreme nature of this criticism leads to "the rejection of any system of compulsory education and to proposals to weaken and even to abolish the public school. .. " through such devices as vouchers received as tax credits. Neither Hook, nor Dewey before him, could by any stretch of the imagination be considered defenders of the educational status quo, yet Hook is convinced that "most of the proposed cures of latter day progressive educators are worse than the disease," because they stem from flagrant misconceptions of some of Dewey's pivotal ideas.
One basic misconception is that all experience is educational. Thus, "any series of experiences -- the more direct and dynamic the better - can be substituted for formal schooling which is often disparaged as an artificial experience." The experiences of work, travel, and living away are "considered appropriate substitutes for study. In short, having an experience is identified with knowing it or understanding it." Hook reminds us forcefully of Dewey's central distinction between those experiences that are "educative" and those which are "non-educative" or mis-educative," between experiences which give "genuine insight" and those which give only "excitement."
Debasement by Fallacy
According to Hook, the greatest damage done by the fallacy which converts Dewey's statement that "all genuine education comes about through experience" into "all experiences are genuinely educational" is the "debasement of the quality of educational experience" by substituting what is euphemistically called "fieldwork" and "independent study" for genuine clinical experiences. Hook goes on to say: "'fieldwork' today often means no field except what the student professes an interest in, and work means whatever he chooses to do. The recent revelations of the kind of 'fieldwork' done at the New York State University College at Old Westbury under the presidency of
Mr. Harris Wofford contributed to the hilarity of the nation (see the New York Times of April 26, 1971). According to this uncontested report, the fieldwork or independent study which students were allowed to pursue embraced
'almost any project that was neither illegal nor hazardous ... One student's project was called "Creative Candle-Making- learning how to (appreciate) and making candles." The professor's role in this five-credit project was ''to look at my candles when I make them and receive several as gifts" ... The project of one woman student, for five credits, was called "Poetry of Life." Her project description read as follows:
"Now I hear beautiful music. Then I paint a mind picture. Later I walk in the wood. Reverently I study my wood, know it. Converse with a poet meaningful to me, Make Love."
Not only were all courses regarded as of equal educational significance; a fetishism of equality between teacher and student pervaded all aspects of school life. It sometimes took bizarre forms. One faculty member met his class under a table so everyone could be on the same level."'
If this tendency to substitute "lived experience" for "academic study and undertaken with a structured course of study and intelligently supervised by the faculty" persists, diplomas and degrees will mean very little and "it may be necessary to set up, as in some foreign countries, national examinations for the degree."
Another major misconception of the new establishment critics is that of identifying "democracy in education" with the notion of placing students on the same footing as faculty. Hook comments: "In a political democracy, however, it does not follow that all the major social institutions can or should be run on politically democratic lines ... where a numerical majority makes a decision that binds the entire community. In a political democracy the army, the church, the museum, the family and the school cannot be organized in a politically democratic manner if they are to perform their proper specific functions." All these institutions can and should be democratic in the sense that all involved are treated with respect, consulted and given responsibilities commensurate with their abilities.
Our schools are in great trouble. The troubles are worsened by a decline in public confidence, partly as a result of irresponsible and extreme criticism. Dr. Hook has performed a public service by exposing the weakness of the critics' philosophical base.