Educators face a persistent question: What are the qualities — knowledge, skills, character — we wish schools to produce in our children? Historically, three paradigms have influenced how we have answered this question.
The first is the "capacity" paradigm. The primary role of the school is to stuff students with as much knowledge as possible. This paradigm arrived with the Puritan colonists, who founded Boston Latin Grammar School in 1635. Along with Latin the school taught the Greek and Roman classics. The new Core Curriculum, though more interesting than Latin, offers its own updated version of educational classics.
The second paradigm focuses on the word "potentiality." The idea is linked to Rousseau, who was the founder of Romanticism. His book, Emile, asks us to imagine the education of a little boy raised in the country next to nature. Though Emile has a tutor, the tutor never teaches him a single lesson. Progressive education, which was a reform movement of the 1920s and 30s, applied Rousseau's doctrine of child-centered (or more recently student-centered) learning to America's schools.
The third paradigm believes education is a "humanistic art." The rapport established between the teacher and the student is similar to a spiritual union. The best known practitioner of this art was Socrates. Nothing is more important to the art of teaching and learning than a skilled and caring teacher.
Which paradigm will most likely give us the quality of citizens we all desire?
Stanley Ivie
Richfield