No No Child Left Behind

Here are the aforementioned notes on education, a la John Dewey. All this material is taken from the essay, "Education as Growth," essay #29 of McDermott's two volume compilation of Dewey's work.

I will begin the present discussion with Dewey's conclusive definition of education, and then build back up to the definition following Dewey's reasoning. He defines education thus:

"Our net conclusion is that life is development, and that growing, developing, is life. Translated into its educational equivalents, that means (i) that the educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that (ii) the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, and transforming."

Right away we can see that this conflicts with the armchair concept of education: prepare for the demands of the future. While it may be true that circumstances in the future will impose demands which one is currently unable to handle, there is no indication that, for example, documented ability to meet special criteria demonstrates an ability to meet unknown criteria. The core of the Dewey model will be found to be an ability to be able: "A possibility of continuing progress is opened up by the fact that in learning one act, methods are developed good for use in other situations. Still more important is the fact that the human being acquires a habit of learning. He learns to learn." The idea being that one does not learn habitual responses but rather learns appropriate manners of building habits.

This is largely drawn from a reflection on the word "immature."

"[T]he prefix 'im' of the word immaturity means something positive, not a mere void or lack. It is noteworthy that the terms 'capacity' and 'potentiality' have a double meaning, one sense being negative, the other positive...[W]e also mean by capacity an ability, a power; and by potentiality potency, force. Now when we say that immaturity means the possibility of growth, we are not referring to absent powers which may exist at a later time; we express a force positively present--the ability to develop."

Immaturity, taken from its moorings of being simply opposite of maturity, is thus seen as the lesser part of a spectrum denoting increasing ability, where capacity and potentiality are ever present energies driving the immature towards maturity.

"Taken absolutely, instead of comparatively, immaturity designates a positive force or ability,--the power to grow. We do not have to draw out or educe positive activities from a child, as some educational doctrines would have it. Where there is life, there are already eager and impassioned activities. Growth is not something done to them; it is something they do."

A tree does not require an urging from other trees to grow. Neither does a human. Yet Dewey also recognizes an incongruity in this metaphor. A human child is considerably more helpless than a sapling; a human's physical maturities do not manifest completely until some 17-20 years after birth. Shouldn't the same fact also hold true for psychological maturities? Some studies show that it is not until some 25 years after birth that the human brain becomes biologically mature, and a few might even argue that "true maturity" does not come until the later 20s, early 30s. Although, questions of this sort do figure into Dewey's analysis of immaturity.

"The seriousness of the assumption of the negative quality of the possibilities of immaturity is apparent when we reflect that it sets up as an ideal and standard a static end. The fulfillment of growing is taken to mean an accomplished growth: that is to say, an Ungrowth, something which is no longer growing."

Dewey says the fact that many resent this loss of innocence is proof enough of the inadequacy of the ideal, yet I think we can do better. The mistake, in keeping as best I can to Dewey's thoughts, is in believing maturity to be a means to desired ends. The most common advice to children centers on the fulfillment of desires through "adult" means of acquisition: waiting one's turn, working for rewards, moderating acquisitive behavior, etc. Resentment need not stem from a perception of one not being able to develop further. One may be resentful of an other's seemingly "immature" means of acquisition in comparison to one's own moderate behavior. In other words, the restrictions one places on one's own behavior and similarly believes ought to be placed on the behavior of others becomes a source of resentment when it appears such restrictions do not serve to improve one's acquisition of ends. This may be identified as a resentment originating from "accomplished growth," yet unlike what Dewey suggests as an ending to growth, I believe this accomplished growth is an untimely perception of one's ethical status.

Despite what I see as a weakness in Dewey's critique of relative maturity, I do not believe my contention is problematic for the wider argument on education. The second section of "Education as Growth" deals with the idea that habits are actually expressions of one's growth. This would lend credence to the view that maturity is less a state of Ungrowth than a conglomeration of learned habits, thereby lending a "mature" person continued opportunity to grow and become more educated. However, Dewey's formulation of habit also prohibits the notion that education may be used a another method of conformity.

"If we think of a habit simply as a change wrought in the organism, ignoring the fact that this change consists in ability to effect subsequent changes in the environment, we shall be led to think of 'adjustment' as conformity to environment as wax conforms to the seal which impresses it."

Growth, i.e., education, which is expressed by habit, is not achieved by a molding of young minds. More so, there is a reciprocal effect between organism and environment:

"Gradually certain stimuli are selected because of their relevancy, and others are degraded. We can say either that we do not respond to them any longer, or more truly that we have effected a persistent response to them--an equilibrium of adjustment. This means, in the second place, that this enduring adjustment supplies the background upon which are made specific adjustments, as occasion arises...Upon this background our activities focus at certain points in an endeavor to introduce needed changes."

Some of these changes, which Dewey quite crudely fashions as civilized habits, are actually changes of the environment, such as irrigation. How are any of these changes in behavior even possible? one might ask. The question goes to the root of "Education as Growth": the concept of plasticity. Plasticity is the characteristic trait of immaturity. Due to the delayed physical maturities and acquired psychological maturities of the human child in comparison to other animals, humans achieve the majority of their growth by trial and error.

"It is a familiar fact that the young of the higher animals, and especially the human young, have to learn to utilize their instinctive tendencies than other animals. But the instincts of the lower animals perfect themselves for appropriate action at an early period after birth, while most of those of the human infant are of little account just as they stand...A being who, in order to use his eyes, ears, hands, and legs, has to experiment in making varied combinations of their reactions, achieves a control that is flexible and varied."

And further on:

"The infant has the advantage of the multitude of instinctive tentative reactions and of the experiences that accompany them..."

The same inadequacies of immature behavior are exactly what is required in order to form the background for adaptation. At this point, we have reviewed enough material to explain why Dewey's definition of education, as found in this particular essay, makes sense. First, the definition again:

"Our net conclusion is that life is development, and that growing, developing, is life. Translated into its educational equivalents, that means (i) that the educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that (ii) the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, and transforming."

Dewey can back up point (i) with his argument distancing immaturity from any negative formulations. Because immaturity sets up the basis for all habits by way of experimentation, the entire process of education cannot adequately be described as a means. The habits cannot be said to be separate from the experimentation which engenders them; habits are the expressions of the experimental growth process. This also helps dispel the idea of maturity as an end to growth, a step necessary in the acceptance that changes in behavior can be made well after the developmental years. Such is Dewey's second (ii) point.

Why review Dewey now, given all the additional and often more advanced information we know about human development and psychology? I believe Dewey's work in the field of educational theory is well on its way to being rediscovered by modern psychology. Furthermore, the societal approaches to education in the United States is distant from both the modern and the Deweyan theories. We are seeing more and more reports on how legislation such as No Child Left Behind, practices like the SATs and ACTs, behaviors of over-achievement and resume padding, and the overall groping for "achievements" in hopes of advancing one's place in the world have little to no benefit besides their societal acceptance. I contend that America's crisis in education is caused by an overall misperception of what education is actually meant to achieve, increased flexibility in behavior, and how limited its application is meant to be: "We are never interested in changing the whole environment; there is much that we take for granted and accept just as it already is." What sounded like a simple observation for Dewey sounds like an exhortation to our ears some 100 years later. The stars are the limit in America, and yet, the ground beneath our feet is growing soft.

Update: Now happily an article in Philosopher's Carnival #35.