|
Understanding
the U.S.A.
by Mortimer Adler, Ph.D.
In the interest of brevity, I am not going to
summarize in detail the recommendations for the
reform of our schools (K through 12) that my
associates and I have set forth in The Paideia
Proposal (1982) and in Paideia Problems and
Possibilities (1983). 1 am going to assume that
the readers of this article will have read these
two very short books or will read them as
background for what I wish to say here. However, I
will restate briefly certain points made in these
two books as they bear on the objectives of basic
schooling for all the children of this land, on the
framework of a required curriculum for all, and on
the training of the future teachers for schools
thus reformed.
The three objectives of basic schooling, which
are the same for all in a one-track system of
public schooling, are as follows, in an ascending
order of importance: (1) preparation for earning a
living; (2) preparation for the duties of
citizenship; and (3) preparation for continued
learning throughout the years of adult life after
all schooling is completed, so that each individual
can eventually become a truly educated human being,
a condition unattainable in youth and one that
fully realizes the potentialities of each
individual.
In this article, I am mainly concerned with the
second of these objectives -- the contribution to
be made by basic schooling to civic life, in which
each individual fulfills the high obligations of
the highest political office in a constitutional
democracy -- that of citizenship. We the citizens
are the government of the United States. The
office-holders in Washington are not the
government. They are only the administrators of the
people's government. In Lincoln's words, they are
the servants of the people in any government that
is truly a government of, by, and for the
people.
To achieve the aforestated three objectives for
all, the curriculum of the twelve years of basic
schooling must be the same for all, with all
electives eliminated (except the choice of an
acquired second language) and with none of the
worse-than-useless, highly particularized
job-training left in the curriculum. That required
course of study can be constructed in many
different ways in different states and different
school districts, but all, to be sound, should be
constructed within a curricular framework that
includes three different kinds of learning and
three different kinds of teaching.
These three kinds of learning and of teaching
are as follows, again in an ascending order of
importance.
- (1) The acquisition of organized knowledge
in the fields of basic subject-matter (language,
literature, and the fine arts; mathematics and
natural science; history, geography, and the
study of social institutions), aided by the kind
of teaching that is didactic -- teaching by
telling, by the use of textbooks or manuals,
classroom exercises and demonstration, and
monitored by the ordinary types of tests. This
is the only kind of learning and teaching that
occurs, however inadequately, in most of our
schools. When unaccompanied by the second and
third kinds of learning and teaching it is a
largely a stuffing of the memory rather than a
development of the knowing and thinking
mind.
- (2) The development of all the intellectual
skills, linguistic, mathematical, and scientific
skills, all of which are skills of thinking and
of learning, without which no one can possibly
become an educated human being. This kind of
learning cannot be aided by didactic teaching,
by the use of textbooks, by ordinary class-room
exercises. All skills, intellectual as well as
bodily skills, are habits. Habits can be formed
only by the repetition of the right acts and the
elimination of the wrong acts. The formation of
habits requires coaching -- in the classroom in
the way that it occurs in the gymnasium, the
swimming pool, the playing field. This is a
totally different kind of teaching from the kind
of didactic teaching that goes on in most
classrooms and during most of the school day. It
calls for a different student-teacher ratio,
different surroundings, different time
allotments, and so on. Without coaching
adequately pro-vided for all twelve years of
basic schooling, our children will never develop
the skills of reading, writing, speaking,
listening, calculating, observing, estimating,
inferring, etc.
- (3) The enlargement and elevation of the
understanding of basic ideas and issues, to be
begun in kindergarten and continued through all
twelve years. This kind of learning, the most
important of all, can be helped only by teachers
who conduct seminars in the Socratic fashion,
and teach by asking, not by lecturing or
telling, and who moderate discussions in which
the students actively engage in an intelligent
and critical consideration of fundamental ideas
and issues, based on the reading of important
books (never textbooks, which are totally
undiscussable) and other productions of human
art (musical, visual, etc.).
At present, those who enter the teaching
profession, as currently prepared for teaching by
schools or departments of education, are poorly
prepared for the second kind of teaching, and
totally unprepared for the third. In addition, they
are not themselves generally, liberally, and
humanistically educated human beings. They have
been educationally shortchanged by the kind of
schooling they themselves have received, as well as
poorly trained for the tasks they ought to be able
to discharge.
To remedy these deficiencies, The Paideia
Proposal recommends that the teachers of the future
receive the same kind of general, liberal, and
humanistic schooling that is here outlined for the
first twelve years and, in addition, four more
years of the same kind of schooling at colleges
that overcome the present trend toward even more
intense specialization in some narrow field of
subject-matter, this to be followed by at least
three years of in-service or clinical experience
under the supervision of master teachers.
The primary concern in the preparation of the
teachers of the future should be the development of
Socratic skills -- the skills involved in teaching
by asking not by telling, and by leading
discussions in which teachers sit around a table
with their students, the first among equals, a
better learner than their students and thus a
leader in learning.
There are two reasons for this. The first is
that any educational regimen that is mainly or
exclusively didactic is like a diet that is mainly
or exclusively fatty, with few carbohydrates and no
proteins. Such an unbalanced diet imposes a burden
of unhealthy weight on the body. Its educational
parallel imposes an unhealthy weight on the memory,
not the mind. It leaves the mind undernourished.
What is learned is not really known or understood.
Genuine knowledge of subject-matters can be
achieved only by minds able to think, adequately
coached in all the skills of learning, and only by
minds that have their ability to understand
stimulated by the discussion of basic ideas and
issues, common to all fields of learning.
The second reason looks to technological
advances that will either replace or alter the
function of teachers with regard to the first kind
of learning. Audio-visual cassettes will in the
future bring the best lecturers on every subject
into the classroom by way of closed-circuit
television. The classroom teacher who is present
during such lectures should then function as the
best listener to them, leading the students present
in the difficult process of listening well, and
following the listening by Socratic questioning and
discussion of the lecture's content.
Computers will be programmed to coach students
in all the linguistic and mathematical skills, and
they will serve this purpose much better than
ordinary, teachers, even well-trained ones; for
each student can have his or her individual
mechanical coach, which cannot be achieved by even
greatly reduced student-teacher ratios in this
phase of schooling. Supervising this process of
computer-coaching should be teachers who monitor
that process and step into help where computers
fail in one way or another.
These things being so in the future, the main
preparation of teachers should be for the Socratic
method, of seminar discussion. Technological
devices will never replace the human mind in this
kind of teaching or as aids to this kind of
learning.
This brings me, finally, to schooling as
preparation for citizenship and for civic
responsibilities in our democratic society, which
has at long last enacted universal suffrage (for
females as well as for males, for blacks and
Chicanos as well as the whites and anglos), and has
safeguarded the exercise of that right, as it must
be safeguarded in order for it to be effectively
exercised.
This cannot ever be satisfactorily accomplished
by traditional civics courses, taught didactically,
using mainly informative and usually dull textual
materials. Nor can it be accomplished by the
didactic and textbook teaching of American
history.
What is required here is the reading and
discussion of the basic documents that throw light
on the political principles of our democratic
republic. I have in mind such documents as the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of
the United States, The Federalist Papers,
Tocqueville's Democracy in America,
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Theodore Roosevelt's
Progressive Party Platform of 1912, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's Message to Congress in 1944, and so on.
These documents are not now read and discussed in
the years of basic schooling. Most of our teachers
have not read them and, on a first reading of them,
would not be able to understand them or to lead
intelligent discussions of them.
Let me conclude by mentioning two personal
experiences that support what I have just said. In
1975, William Gorman and I, to celebrate the false
bicentennial of this country's existence (the true
bicentennial will not occur until 1989), wrote a
book entitled The American Testament. It
consisted of a careful explication, line by line,
word by word, of three short texts: the Declaration
of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution,
and the Gettysburg Address.
With that book in hand, we led seminars in which
the participants were leaders in American life, all
of them graduates of our most eminent universities.
We learned from these seminars that these
supposedly well-schooled individuals had never
tried before to understand these three documents,
absolutely essential to an understanding of the
United States of America. A first level, and
therefore inadequate, understanding of them, was
achieved at the end of a two-hour discussion, but
much more reading and discussion would be required
for the fuller understanding that should be in the
possession of every citizen of the United
States.
The second experience I wish to refer to has
occurred more recently when, in attempting to give
teachers in various parts of this country some
acquaintance with the Socratic method, I have
conducted demonstration seminars. Some of these
have had high school students as participants, with
a gallery of teachers as observers. Some of these
have had teachers as participants, with other
teachers as observers. I have always begun a series
of such seminars with two hours devoted to the
Declaration of Independence. In that two hours, I
have had time for no more than a consideration of
the first five lines of the second paragraph.
Without exception, I have found that neither
students nor teachers have carefully read the
Declaration at some earlier time and that their
reading of it in preparation for the seminar was
totally inadequate. If they had been asked to give
an analytically penetrating interpretation of the
first five lines of the second paragraph, they
would have failed miserably.
At the end of two hours, they did achieve a
rudimentary understanding of its basic ideas -- the
meaning of self-evident truth, the self-evidence of
human equality, the meaning of unalienable
(natural, human) rights, the scope of the rights
that include life and liberty, the relation of all
natural, human rights to the pursuit of happiness,
the two meanings of the word "happiness," only one
of which makes sense of Jefferson's phrase "the
pursuit of happiness," what is involved in the
securing of natural rights by a just government,
one that derives its just powers from the consent
of the governed, and so on.
Not understanding these things, how can anyone
be said to understand the United States of America?
But understanding these things is far from
sufficient for that purpose. All the other
documents mentioned above must be carefully read,
adequately discussed, and fully understood. For
this to occur, both students and teachers must have
some understanding of at least the following basic
ideas: rights, justice, liberty, equality, wealth,
property, state, society, government, constitution,
democracy, citizenship, law, force, war, and
peace.
I do not think I have to offer any evidence in
support of the statement that the graduates of our
high schools have not read these documents and do
not understand the ideas prerequisite for
understanding them. I regret to say that this
statement holds true for the vast majority of the
graduates of our colleges and universities, among
whom are those who enter the profession of
teaching.
This being so, what kind of citizens are we
turning out of our schools, colleges, and
universities? Certainly not the kind that our
democratic republic deserves and that it must have
if it is to prosper politically and economically.
Those who do not really understand the fundamental
principles and ideas that are the foundation of
this country's existence and development are its
citizens in name only.
Originally published in the Journal of
Teacher Education (August, 1983).
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|