Posts Tagged ‘public education’

John Dewey, Evolution and Socialization

Dear Reader,

I recently ran across John Dewey’s¬†Experience & Education (New York: Collier, 1971; first pub. 1938) at a used book store. Having read a lot about Dewey’s ideas, I felt I owed it to him to actually read his own words. It helped that the book was cheap and very thin ūüėČ

If you are unfamiliar with the name, John Dewey is pretty much THE architect of the modern American school system. If you had to pick one person who had the greatest infuence on public education in the 20th century in the United States, it would be Dewey. As such, he is often the whipping boy for those advocating for a different way of going about things. I once did a post with brief blurbs on (secular) educational thinkers; this is what I had for Dewey:

John Dewey (1859-1952):

  • Who he was: arguably the most influential American educationalist; contributed greatly to the professionalization of the teaching profession

  • Educational ideas: purpose is not to convey knowledge but to share a social experience and integrate the child into democratic ideas; higher education for all social classes; education serves democracy which is almost a spiritual community; children participate in their own learning, but he is not entirely child-led; material should be presented in a way that allows the student to relate it to previous knowledge; education should not be a one-way street from teacher to pupils

  • What he believed: morals are social and pragmatic; secular idealism; democracy is almost a religion with him; no transcendence, i.e. there is no super-natural

Having now read some of Dewey’s own words, there is nothing here I would retract but I do think I have a better feel for the ideas and thoughts behind his philosophy.

Experience & Education is a slim volume but it also came fairly late in Dewey’s career so I hope that it is a representative and fairly well-worked out presentation of his thoughts. In some ways it is not a hard read — the chapters are short, he makes clear what he is trying to do in each one — but in other ways it is hard. The main difficulty lies in how foreign his words and ideas are to my own. It’s a bit like reading Charlotte Mason‘s own words; you need to start by having some idea of what she thinks before actually diving in.

In this book Dewey advocates for progressive as opposed to traditional education. What to Dewey was “traditional education” sounds a lot like modern classical education today (p. 6). It involves a teacher conveying a set body of information to a class of students (p. 17).¬† The emphasis is on the body of knowledge which is independent of the learner. While this approach rests on the assumption that there is an absolute truth to be known, it is very un-individualistic and does not take the unique learner into account.

Progressive education, of which Dewey is a partisan, is progressive in  the sense of being the new, going thing of his day but also in the sense that it relies upon a particular view of progress. In the very first sentence of the book, he tells us:

“All social movements involve conflicts which are reflected intellectually in controversies. It would not be a sign of health if such an important social interest as education were not also an arena of struggles, practical and theoretical.” (p. 5)

Do you have bells ringing in your head? I certainly did when I first read this sentence. The first word I thought of was “Marxism” — a politcal philosophy which assumes conflict as the root of everything — and the second was “evolution” [1]. Indeed Dewey, in the early 1900s, comes right on the heels of the revolution that Darwin’s theory of evolution engendered in society. It was a time when evolution became not just a way of explaining the various forms of life on earth but a way of evaluating and thinking about all aspects of life in our world.

Just as in the theory of evolution, a creature reacts to its environment, so in Dewey’s philosophy of education, the student reacts and responds to his environment. Education is a process, a kind of evolution of the individual. The body of knowledge conveyed is not important — Dewey here barely touches upon such things — but the experiences of the student are. It is a much more individual kind of education.

Dewey’s immediate object in Experience & Education is not to argue for progressive education against the traditonal model but to make the case for a better, more thought-out and less reactionary model of progressive education. To this end he spends some time discussing what experience is and how it should be pursued within the realm of education.

Not all experience is good. Some, Dewey tells us, is “mis-educative” (p. 25). That is, it does not further the ultimate goal. This raises the question: What is the goal of education, and of life? For Dewey the keyword is growth. Experience that is mis-educative does not tend toward growth. The purpose in having these educative experiences is to have . . . more educative experiences. This is the “progress” in his progressive approach. It is a never-ending process of moving from one experience to another. In Dewey’s philosophy, as in many others, the child can only know that of which he has some prior knowledge. There is over time a pushing forward but it is always by connection to what is already known (though Dewey would say “experienced,” rarther than “known”). A good experience, then, is one which leads to more experiences. It opens one up to more rather than shutting down the process. And this is key: there is a process which may be called growth or progress which feeds upon itself and the ultimate goal is to keep this process going though it has no clear end. There is no point at which one may say “It is done.” Here again we see evolutionary thinking: there is an ever-changingness which moves in a way we call “forward” though there is no end to the process and no way to evaluate what it produces other than to say whatever keeps the process going is “good.”

One might think that as there is a perpetual process in motion that this would tend toward a very hands-off approach to education but this is not the case. For Dewey does believe that the process can be derailed. The job of the teacher is to keep the process going by selecting experiences for her pupils which are both interesting and growth-producing. This is quite the task and it is not hard to see how it leads to the need for a class of professional, trained teachers. The teacher begins by discovering what experiences her pupils have already had and then she must discern the best ways to build upon these experiences by providing more of the same, connected to what has come before and yet producing growth. Though she has a class of students, yet there is a lot of concern for the individual as each student should be interested and challenged so that in the end there is “a higher quality experience” for “the greater number” (p. 34).¬† The teacher’s chief qualification is that she is further along in the process than her students, she has had more experiences, and so she is able to craft experiences for them.

And how do these quality exeperiences shape the student and produce growth? Through the interaction between the student and his environment, the interplay of the internal and the external. Here again we see evolutionary ideas: the individual interacts with and is changed by his environment. This change comes because there is always some sort of problem or conflict that must be dealt with. Again, as Darwin’s theory of evolution, progress is built upon struggle.

There are a couple more threads of thought we can see within Dewey’s philosophy. It has a link to behaviorism in that the child is shaped through the actions of the teacher in manipulating his environment and experience. It also relies heavily on the scientifc method [2]¬† which is adapted and applied to the education of the individual (p. 88).

One might from these two get the impression Dewey’s teachers are experimenting on the children.¬†I don’t want to paint too strong a picture, however. The children are not mere pawns in a system here. In the end what Dewey desires for them is freedom by which he means the freedom to do as they choose, “to execute or carry into effect purposes” which he calls “self-control” (p. 67). Any action, he tells us, begins with an impulse or desire. But is it not enough to have a desire to do something, one must make a plan, and for it to be a successful plan, it must be built upon accurate observations of one’s situation and good judgments. The teacher again is very involved. She does does create or judge the merit of the initial impulse but when there is a desire, she guides the students in the process of learning to observe and to form a plan. This is the challenge or problem, the new experience which will lead to growth. Ideally, it is a cooperative experience in that a group of students works on a problem together. Thus one more key point of Dewey’s philosophy is that it is a social enterprise. Though much has been said about the individual, the work is ultimately social and the benefit is not just to the individual but to the society as a whole which, one presumes, is also growing and evolving.

In summary, let us note a few key ideas behind Dewey’s philosophy:

  • It is based upon evolutionary thinking which assumes that “progress” comes through the interaction of the individual with his environment. This interaction produces a kind of conflict or problem which must be resovled. With each success there is forward motion or growth so that life becomes a series of experiences or conflicts which are resolved. Though the words progress and growth as used to describe the motion inherent in this process, there is no definable end. No absolute good or ideal toward which it is all working.
  • The role of the teacher is elevated as it is she who guides the process. Thus Dewey’s philosophy led to the idea, so often assumed in our society today, that in order to teach one much have special skills and training.
  • Knowledge as such is scarcely mentioned. The goal of education is not knowledge but what Dewey calls “self-control” which is not the ability to control oneself but the ability to realize one’s desires (without ever questioning the validity of those desires) by manipulating one’s environment.
  • Though Dewey says that, as the scientific method is alway testing hypotheses, that ideas are very important in his philosophy, yet truth is not. Ideas are perhaps always being played with but there is no standard they are held up to and no absolute truth outside of the process or towards which it leads.
  • Dewey’s approach is entirely materialistic. It does not acknowledge the spiritual or even the intellectual.
  • Though its driving force is conflict, yet Dewey’s aproach does not acknowledge the great conflict of human experience which is sin. It assumes that every person in the right circumstances, given the right experiences, will achieve that forward motion which he terms growth. Nor does he (at least in this thin book)¬† address what happens when two people have competing desires.
  • As a homeschooler, I feel bound to point out as well that the idea that one goal of schooling is socialization can be traced right back to Dewey. Education is a social project. It is not about truth or knowledge nor it is about the development of the individual as such but it is about the forward motion of the whole system in which the individual plays a part, like a cog in a machine, so that there is the greatest “good” for the greatest number of people.

As Christians, we would agree with none of Dewey’s underlying assumptions and we must therefore wholly reject his philosophy of education. And yet it is very useful for us to be familar with it. Not only has it dominated American public education for about a century, its base ideas have so infiltrated our thinking that we are often unaware that we even hold his assumptions as our own.

Because I have been so entirely negative, I will close with a quote from Dewey that I rather like. Though we begin fron different places — he from an utterly godless world — yet he was clearly a brilliant man who expressed himself well and it should perhaps not surprise us that he did, by God’s grace, say a few insightful things along the way:


‚ÄúPerhaps the greatest of all pedagogical fallacies is the notion that a person learns¬† only the particular thing he is studying at the time. Collateral learning in the way of formation of enduring attitudes, of likes and dislikes, may be and often is much more important than the spelling lesson or lesson in geography or history that is learned. For these attitudes are fundamentally what count in the future. The most important attitude that can be formed is that of the desire to go on learning.”¬†

(p. 48)


[1] I normally specify “Darwinian evolution” since, thanks to Benjamin Wiker, I am aware that there could be other ways of viewing evolution. In this article, for the sake of brevity, I will stick to evolution to indicate Darwinian evolution which relies upon conflict as its motivating force.

[2] See my posts on Hicks’¬†Norms and Noblity and Taylor’s¬†Poetic Knowledge for modern critiques of the tendency to apply the scientific method to all areas of knowledge.¬† Both speak from the perspective of classical education, that which Dewey rejects.

Movie Review: The Test and the Art of Thinking

Dear Reader,

Thanks ot a local homeschool group, I recently had the opportunity to watch ‚ÄúThe Test and the Art of Thinking,‚ÄĚ a movie on the SATs. I wrote this review for my local group and thought I would share it here as well.

Not surprisingly, this movie was critical of the SATs (and ACTs though less time was spent specifically on them) as criteria for college admissions. It began with a brief discussion of the original purpose of the test. This was not actually entirely bad. Though it was the era of eugenics and most scientists expected the test to show differences between those of us who are more evolved and those who are less so, it also had an egalitarian purpose. Prestigious schools of the day each had their own admission tests and only offered them to students who were already at high level prep schools. A common test allowed students from different backgrounds to compete.

The main criticism of the test was that it does not really measure intelligence. This is true for a number of reasons including: There is not just one kind of intelligence. It is very hard to measure or even define true intelligence. Beating the test has itself become a game of tricks in which those who can pay for expensive prep classes have an advantage.

There was also some talk of the power of the test in society. Though started by those not looking to make money, it is now big business. While some colleges have dropped testing requirements for admissions, the big names still use it and it is hard for others not to follow suit. It was implied that these elite colleges somehow must benefit from using the test though it was not specified how. The national rankings of colleges also play a role and people watch them closely and the average SAT score of admitted students is considered in them (though it was not abundantly clear to me how large this one measure plays in overall rankings).

This movie was best when it was specific and showed ways the test can be ‚Äúgamed.‚ÄĚ They demonstrated for instance that in the essay portion (which is no longer required or even wanted by most schools in my experience) that a long essay gets high marks even if its content is complete drivel. They also showed some tricks prep agencies teach for getting probable right answers without even reading the problem.

I had a number of issues with or questions about the movie:

  • It relied heavily on test prep people and admissions staff (or former admissions staff). Every time a College Board (the people who run the SATs) person was talking it was recorded from some other forum. It may be the College Board refused to talk directly to them, but then this should have been said.
  • It was very low on statistics. In fact, there were almost none that related to the success or bias of the test. There was an allusion made to gender differences but no facts on what these are. Again, it was said in passing that test scores do not correlate to college success and that all they correlate to is parents’ educational level (all things I have heard before in other contexts), but hard numbers to back these things up would have been more persuasive. Nor was there any real discussion of how poorer and otherwise marginalized groups do on the test.
  • There is no doubt schools rely on test scores. What I have heard is that even top schools do not rely solely on test scores. Harvard gets a lot of 1600s applying and they look beyond scores for something more. The movie presented things as black-and-white, we use scores or we don’t. I think an honest assessment would need to look at how schools really evaluate students and how much of a role those test scores actually play. (I know a lot of this information is proprietary and that schools do not want to share how they make decisions but we need to at least acknowledge that it is not a simple process.)
  • The movie is dated. Though it was made in 2018, the SAT has changed recently and the essay is no longer required and (from looking at schools for my son last year) most schools don’t even want it. The best criticism the movie had was of how essays don’t even have to be true (see above) but it is no longer relevant. I laughed in appreciation when they said the reading selections are like articles from Time Magazine and there are still a number like this, but my experience with my children is that they are also now including passages from real literature (like Jane Austen novels). In my observation there has been some real improvement in the latest changes which was not addressed.
  • Most of the tricks shown which cheat the system had to do with the math section. There may be similar tricks for the reading and writing potions but this was not made clear. So I am left wondering if those portions are also as game-able.
  • At one point one of the talking heads talks about a hypothetical question about who was president during WWII and how some answers, though wrong, are still better than others. I get his point, but it wasn’t well related to the test which does not have these sorts of factual history questions. I assume he was meaning to say something about the reading portion which often asks for the best answer out of a selection of possible ones but this connection was not made clear.
  • Obviously some people pay oodles of money to learn the tricks of the test. I would like to know how much they actually improve their scores by doing so. My kids who have taken the test improved some by doing practice tests at home. How does this method of preparation compare to those expensive classes? How much can a 1400 kid (on a first try) imporve versus a 1000 kid? Again hard numbers are needed.
  • There is an underlying value system here which I don’t buy into anyway which says that one needs to get into the elite colleges and therefore needs the best scores. When my own son was looking for colleges, we saw that the elite ones require a certain number of SAT subject tests or AP tests. Knowing he would hate to do all that extra prep and testing and feeling that it would be a waste of his time, we eliminated such schools from our list under the assumption that if they attract people that are so focused on such things they are probably not good schools for him anyway. It is hard to avoid the SAT (or ACT) in our society, but one can keep it in perspective and get by without buying into the whole system.
  • Not really a criticism of the movie: The test was not originally game-able (even in the 1980s when many of us parents were taking it, this was not a big thing). Since it has become so, because people have discovered ways to get right answers without actually doing the problems, the whole thing has become a game and of less value overall. The film used a lot of test prep people who make lots of money teaching rich kids how to trick the system. (I don’t honestly know how these people live with themselves, but that’s a side issue.) I think we should not be surprised that human beings cannot create an un-game-able test but how this comes through in test questions thereby making them game-able seems like it would be a fascinating psychological study to me.

“The Test and the Art of Thinking” did not really provide new information. I went in expecting it to tell me just the things it told me: that the test is game-able, that those who can afford expensive test prep have an advantage, that it does not measure true intelligence. I didn’t find that there was much new added to the discussion here and I would really have liked to see the hard numbers to back all this up.


Public Education in America Today

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series on reformed theology and education. You can find part 1 here and part 2 here.

Before we go too far to look briefly at public education in America today.¬† I am by no means an expert on any of this but I think it is useful as we begin to form our own philosophy of education to see what our culture does and how it got to be the way it is.¬† My goal is not to give a thorough analysis of all the issues; that could take volumes (and has), but there are few points I’d like to draw out.

I want to be clear from the start that though a lot of what I say is going to be negative, I am not making an argument that public schools are inherently evil; that we should all homeschool; that there is no place for public education; that the teachers and administrators are evil, godless, or misguided. I do think there is a place for public education and that there are a lot of truly caring and even godly people working in the schools. I am very glad they are there.

Having said which, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the schools were all we wanted them to be. Our goal for today is to look at the history of public education in America and the ideas which lie behind it.¬† [I am relying primarily on four authors; see the bibliography with my notes on each at the end of this post.]

A Bit of History

Education as we know it today — which is to say universal compulsory education — has only been around in the United States for about the last hundred years. The idea of universal compulsory education began in Germany in the early 1800s as that country moved toward nationalism and away from feudalism (Dawson, p. 49; Gray, p. 61). The German/Prussian model of education was a democratic one in that it extended education to all levels of society. Education served the nationalistic goal and was a unifying force. Peter Gray and John Taylor Gatto both make the case that public education was never about academics as literacy rates were high in both Europe and the United States at the time (Gray, p. 60; Gatto, Weapons, p. 9). Indeed as public education grew, literacy rates only declined (Gatto, Weapons, p. 17). While some still valued education for its own sake, education was for many the tool of social change. As such it included not just intellectual instruction but moral training as well (Dawson, p. 50).

As the movement toward universal schooling expanded geographically, England and America were the lone hold-outs (Dawson, p. 52; Gray, p. 62).¬† It wasn’t until the mid to late 1800s that the German educational system began to make headway in the United States. Horace Mann is credited with introducing the idea in the 1850s in Massachusetts but even there it was slow to take hold. The various authors disagree on the exact details of when and why public schooling did take hold, but they all place it in the early 1900s, sometime around 1920-1930.

Why Universal Education?

Though there doesn’t seem to be a consensus, it is interesting to think about the ideas and trends that were present in American culture between, say, 1880-1930 that may have contributed to the acceptance of universal education:

  • Darwinian evolution presented the idea that people as well as animals have evolved and are evolving. This is the era of unapologetic eugenics. Wiker in particular draws the connection between Darwinian evolution and liberal politics (pp. 194-97).**
  • Following close on its heels is social engineering, that is, the remaking of society through political means (Wiker, p. 197). “Sociology,” Wiker tells us, “would take the place of theology as the queen if the sciences” (p. 276).
  • Christians were not exempt from this trend. Wiker shows how Christians with legitimate, godly concerns — caring for the poor, for instance — worked with and were ultimately used by non-Christian liberals (Wiker, pp. 284-86). This is the era of the social gospel.
  • Industrialization and a move to the cities brought a trend to mechanization and systemization. Gatto and Gray have a fair amount to say on this — the school as factory assembly line. Children, Gray says, are “passed along , from grade to grade, like products on an assembly line” (Gray, p. 64; cf. Gatto, Dumbing, p. 89).¬†For some context, Ford’s first assembly line was in 1913.
  • Dawson ties the rise of universal schooling to the end of unlimited immigration in the early 1900s (pp. 60-61). America had always been a dynamic place — both filling its borders and absorbing so many peoples from so many places. Now this was on the decline. Americans began to find their own group identity. This is when the melting pot, with less new cheese being added every year, really began to melt (my analogy, not his; never blog hungry). As education in Germany went hand-in-hand with nationalization, so in the United States education was linked to a new sense of national identity.
  • It is odd to me that none of the writers I read on this topic mentioned World War I. My own observation from reading Charlotte Mason’s volumes is that in her sixth and final one,¬†Towards a Philosophy of Education, which was written after the war, that there has been quite a change in focus and intensity. I see a desperation in her writing that was not there before. “The War to End All Wars” (if only it had been so) really threw people for a loop. Perhaps this was more true in Europe than America, but people wondered how, if we are so advanced and civilized, we can yet be so brutal. The answer for Charlotte was a renewed commitment to her own philosophy of education as the means of changing what is wrong in society and ultimately in the human heart.
  • Miss Mason was not alone in this. The early 1900s were a boom time for educational philosophies. Maria Montessori, of the Montessori method, and Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the Waldorf education movement, were also active during the period.
  • On the political side, the exaltation of the secular schools and the corresponding downfall of the church were aided and abetted by a reinterpretation of the First Amendment creating a new wall between church and state (Wiker, pp. 251-52, 290ff; Dawson, p.84).
  • Trends in education often work from the top down — spreading from the university down to the elementary school. In the 1930s and again after WWII more and more students attended (liberal) colleges and therefore absorbed and perpetuated their ideologies (Wiker, pp. 272-73).

Expansion and Secularization

Sectarian differences among different Christian groups have led them to, at various times, support state control of education in an effort to limit the influence of other Christian groups (Dawson, pp. 83, 142; Wiker, pp. 295-96). This has often been a Protestant versus Catholic issue though Dawson, a die-hard Catholic, also faults “the fissiparous tendency of American Protestantism” (p. 142; your assignment: use fissaparous in conversation five times this week). In seeking to exclude the other’s version of religion, Christians have willingly opted for a “neutral” secular version of education.¬†But education cannot remain morally and spiritually neutral (Dawson, pp. 79-82).

I am not sure education anywhere at any time has ever been about pure academics, but even if it had started that way, education has an expansive tendency. It takes more and more time — the school year in Massachusetts was originally only twelve weeks long (Gray, p. 64). It expands to new age groups “from the university to the nursery school” (Dawson, p. 53). It expands to all areas of life, absorbing not just the academic but the physical, emotional and spiritual (Dawson, pp. 53, 78).

This trend is inevitable but it is not inherently bad. In fact I would say it is as it should be. We are composite people — intellect, body, soul, emotions. We cannot separate out one part and educate that only. If one’s students are coming to school hungry, emotionally broken, or pregnant, they are not going to learn well. A caring teacher naturally wants to see all her students’ needs met, both so they can learn and for their own good. But the end result is that school is not just about the 3R’s but comes to absorb almost all facets of life.

I say “almost” because the spiritual is sadly lacking.¬†As in the German model, education is seen as the cure for whatever ails us (Dawson, p. 48). When problems arise within education itself, the solution is not to reevaluate but to offer more and more education. To the extent that is the answer to societal problems, education becomes a kind of savior. But it is a limited savior, touching the emotional and psychological but denying the spiritual.

In offering a kind of salvation, the schools step into the realm of the church. Wiker argues that this liberalization, which he traces through both politics and education — is not unintentional; it is a deliberate liberating¬†from religion (p. 15). Dawson argues that universal education and secularization feed on each other:

“And in fact there is no doubt that the progress of universal education has coincided with the secularization of modern culture and has been very largely responsible for it.” (p. 78)

The more the school absorbs, the less is left for the church. And as a man cannot serve two masters, one will win out:

” . . .the fact that secular education is universal and compulsory , while religious education is partial and voluntary, inevitably favors the former . . .” (Dawson, p. 79)

“If the Church were one of these compulsory organizations modern man would be religious, but since it is voluntary, and makes demands on his spare time, it is felt to be superfluous and unnecessary.” (Ibid., p. 132)***

As in Germany, education in America is a nationalizing force. It spreads  a common culture; in doing so it also creates a common culture:

“For modern culture is not pluralistic in character, as some social scientists have assumed; on the contrary, it is more unitary, more uniform and more highly centralized and organized than any culture that the world has known hitherto. And modern education has been one of the major factors in producing this, since it brings the whole of the younger generation under the same influences and ideas during the most impressionable period of their lives.” (Dawson, pp. 111-12)

For those without strong church ties, school often becomes the center of cultural life (Dawson, pp. 60-61, 68, 85).

The result —

” . . . the majority of the population are neither fully Christian nor consciously atheist, but non-practicing Catholics, half-Christians and well-meaning people who are devoid of any positive religious knowledge at all.” (Dawson, p. 85)

Dawson argues further that these “sub-religious” people are “also in some sense subhuman” (p. 132), deprived as they are of fully realizing one aspect of their natures.

Logistics and Fragmentation

Conformity to some degree is probably unavoidable in mass schooling. For the sake of convenience, children are divided by age. This is often characterized as a factory-like system as but I think we must also use some charity in our interpretation; it is not an easy thing to come up with a way to educate thousands of children at once. I think there are ways, and Charlotte Mason’s schools seem to have done so without turning children into numbers, but grouping children by age or level seems like a logical first step. What begins as a logical move generates unintended consequences, however. Children who spend six hours a day primarily with their peers and not interacting with adults or all ages and stripes as they once would have been. There is evidence as well that this is not psychologically advantageous; children are more compassionate when not placed with their immediate peers (Gray, pp. 35, 76). But beyond that, the normal bonds of human life are broken. Gatto speaks of networks versus communities and spends some time showing that what we have now are the former, not the latter (Dumbing, pp. 49, 65). The family in particular is down-graded to a lesser role (Dumbing, p. 56, 67; Weapons pp. 41, 100).

Nor can one teacher necessarily teach every subject to the full. So as children are divided, so are subjects; science occupies this hour, history that one. There is a general tendency to fragmentation. With subjects taught separately by different teachers at different times, it is hard to give or see the big picture. With no overarching theology or philosophy [though one could argue, as Wiker does, that liberalism has its own philosophy (Wiker, p. 11)], with subjects taught in isolation, there is no coherence, no unifying principle (Weapons, p. 16). This tendency is enhanced by what Dawson calls “scientific specialization” (p. 101). Wiker describes this trend:

“The rise and ever-increasing authority of the ‘expert,’ too came from the German model of university education, wherein academic study was divide up into ever smaller numbers of distinct disciplines, each focusing on a narrowly defined area.” (p. 275)

This fragmentation is furthered by the need for evaluation. Testing, and in particular standardized testing, contributes to the break down of knowledge into discrete, unconnected facts. “Memorizing the dots,” Gatto says, “is the gold standard of intellectual achievement. Not connecting those dots” (Weapons, p. 16).


What can we learn from all this? First, when we look at the origins of universal compulsory schooling, we should become very wary. The ideas behind this movement are suspect. We should not, perhaps, throw the baby out with the bath water, but at the same time we need to make sure that we are not unconsciously adopting ideas that are without a biblical, God-honoring basis. In another post, I’d like to look at some of the people behind compulsory education so you can see who they were and what their motivations were.

Second, there are some interesting trends here that we can keep in mind as we begin to form our own philosophy of education:

  1. Moral and religious neutrality is impossible. Christians have at times supported “neutral” public education arguing that no religion is better than a religion that is not my brand. But it is impossible to be truly neutral. There is always a worldview behind what is being taught.
  2. #1 is due, at least in part, to the fact that education does not stay purely academic. Man is made of many aspects and one cannot educate the mind without bringing in the body and the emotions and the spirit.
  3. Yet at the same time, education has become fragmented in many ways. Even while it encompasses more and more of life the disciplines are fragmented. Science, history, math, language seemingly have nothing to do with one another. We need a unifying principle that extends through them, explains them and how they relate to one another.
  4. Education as it is usually practiced in the United States today shatters other social institutions, especially the church and the family. It is not inherently bad to have someone other than mom and dad do the educating but we need to keep in the forefront that social units which God Himself has instituted and be wary of undermining them. Jesus tells us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. I am going to paraphrase that — what your time is spent on, there will your heart be. Apart from any other concerns, when schooling takes so much of one’s time, when it is compulsory (and church is not), it threatens to seem more and more important and to consume more and more of one’s life to the detriment of those other, God-ordained institutions.


**Wiker also has a book on Darwin which I highly recommend: The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin (Washington, D.C. Regnery Press, 2009).

***Side note: This seems like a pretty good argument for Sabbath keeping to me. If we view the first day of the week as our own, we come to resent any intrusion into it, even that of the Church.


Dawson, Christopher.¬†The Crisis of Western Education. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1961. Dawson is ardently Catholic and comes off at times as anti-Protestant. I have some issues with his depiction of education before modern times which I may discuss in another post, but he also makes a lot of insightful observations which really made me think. It is amusing to read his depiction of education in medieval times alongside Gray’s.

Gatto, John Taylor. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2002 (10th anniversary edition).

______________¬†.¬†Weapons of Mass Instruction.¬†Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2010.¬†The title of this book probably says all you need to know about Gatto’s take on things. He is a favorite of the unschooling movement and was himself a public school teacher in New York City. Dumbing Us Down is a series of lectures and as such is a bit more disjointed. In Weapons he has worked out his argument a bit more.¬†

Gray, Peter.¬†Free to Learn. New York: Basic Books, 2013.¬†Gray’s main purpose is to argue for how children should learn (through play). In the process he gives a brief history of education. He is an unschooler, arguing against hierarchical control of children. His approach is essentially the paleo diet of education; i.e. what worked for primitive societies is clearly best.

Wiker, Benjamin. Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2013. Wiker is one of my current favorite authors. If you are going to read any book on this list, make it this one. His primary subject is politics but in the course of it he touches on education as well and makes an argument for Christian education. I believe he is Catholic but you could easily read his book without realizing that.