Philosophies and movements in education

There are a number of well-known educational movements out there. All of them sound confident with their respective claims, which are often inconsistent, if not conflicting, answers to the basic problems of education. What ought to be the purpose of education? What ought we to teach in education? How ought we to teach?

Often, the proponents of the movements would justify their answers to these questions by citing the "truth" or "universality" of their assumptions about reality, the human being, knowledge, good, and, at times, beauty. Such assumptions, it may be noticed, are traceable to one or more philosophies. One, of course, has his/her own philosophy, possibly quite different from the known ones. Often, however, the student's or teacher's philosophy is more or less consistent with or similar to one or more philosophies. Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian/Lockean Realism, Augustinian Idealism, Thomasian Realism, Sartrean Existentialism, and Rousseau's Naturalism are some of such philosophies. (Already, my use of the expression "philosophy" here suggests that it is basically a body of fundamental beliefs or assumptions that one uses to justify answers to questions that are more or less similar to the educational problems that I've just stated.)

Students of education should be cautioned that it's not uncommon for a certain philosophy to be tied to the ideals and visions of a certain educational movement. Experts, however, may not agree as to the connections other authors make between an educational movement and a certain philosophy. This implies that impeaching a certain aspect of a philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has effectively undermined the validity of a certain educational movement.

One way to effectively invalidate an educational movement, and its recommended educational practices, is to show first that there is indeed a lack of robust connection between such movement and its supposed theoretical foundation (a philosophy or a cross between two or more philosophies). The next job is to attack the areas of philosophy/philosophies that serve as the major pillars of an educational movement in question. Another way to invalidate an educational movement is to prove that it has, if any, very little practical value, and it does more harm than good to the stakeholders, especially the students, in education. Of course, a more potent approach is to question both the theoretical and practical value of the movement in question.

The simple lesson that I wish to state here is that it's just unwise to embrace something if there is no good reason to do so.

Social Reconstructionism: Where should we begin?

It seems easy to say why we sorely need an education that will enable us, in the long run, here in the Philippines, to reform our society into something it ought to be. But it's unwise to begin by looking for someone or some thinkers whose philosophy or philosophies shall be used as a guide in formulating a social reconstructionistic education in our country.

I believe that what we need to do is to examine or diagnose first our social and cultural situation before we reformulate the goals of education, think of what we ought to teach in order to accomplish such goals, and decide the manner by which we're going to deliver the agreed contents of reconstructionistic education. The social reconstructionist advises us to inspect the various areas of our social and cultural realities: politics, morality, arts, language, psychology, collective intelligence, worldview, and so on. What we ought to teach should be responsive to our own needs. But how could we tell whether there's anything wrong with our politics or the morals of our people, for instance? One way to diagnose our situation is to read our daily papers, both the broadsheets and the tabloids. They will not suffice as a strong basis for our diagnosis, but it's not bad to begin with them as they could show whether something is wrong with our politics or the morals of the people. How many people die everyday for no good reason? How much do corrupt government officials steal from the people? Does the public fall for commercial advertisements fallacious claims? How many people are ill and helpless? How many senior citizens and special children suffer from nightmarish neglect? How does the administration running our government survive condemnation? How many Filipinos want to leave this country? Suppose there are good reasons to believe that such and such are the problems of our people. Is there anything that education could do to effectively address our difficult situation?

Problem of Social Reconstructionism

Social Reconstructionism suggests that education should be an institution of change. Fine. But who will ever disagree with this very broad claim?

But this type of reconstructionistic change is said to go beyond the limits of space occupied by the school campuses. Isn't that good enough a reason to say that reconstructionism is good for us? Great! Great! But this is not clear enough about how things should be done. What exactly are or should be the objectives of formal education? What ought we to teach in school? How ought we to teach the supposed matter of education?

Social Reconstructionism implies that formal education is inadequate if it has no conscious effort to address the enduring problems of one's cultural and social context. This part needs clarification, too, as we do not know yet how far this context goes. Should it be responsive to the requirements of our immediate context alone?

A difficult problem remains unsolved even if we grant that there is no quarrel as regards the social reconstructionistic function of education, for this is still too abstract.

We must not lose sight of the fact that social reconstructionists do not share one and the same philosophy, ideology, and even psychology. In a way, Plato was also a social reconstructionist as evidenced by his desire to realize his vision of an ideal society. Karl Marx was also a social reconstructionist who thought that his communism was the solution to the problematic tension between the capitalist and the working class. Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio were neither platonists nor marxists, yet they also count as fine examples of social "educators" who desired systemic change in their society. How about Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Gandhi, and many more? Even Hitler would count as a social reconstructionist.

So, while it's not difficult to agree with what Social Reconstructionism says in general, we can't help but quarrel when it comes to deciding whose framework ought we to use to guide the educator's attempt to partake in re-engineering or re-building our rickety (i.e., morally and legally corrupt) society.

For: Those who will take the LET

Values, Moral, and Character Education

You'll probably find some helpful information here:

1. A brief history: Character Education and approaches to Moral Education
2. Teaching moral values
3. Values Education: Theory/Practice/Problems/Prospects
4. Character Development
5. Moral Development
6. Values are Caught and Taught
7. Character Education and Cognitive Training

For: Those who are reviewing for the LET

The links below will take you to some sites whose content might be helpful in the Philosophy of Education part of the licensure examination for teachers in the Philippines:

1. Idealism, Realism, Existentialism, and Pragmatism
2. Perennialism, Essentialism, Progressivism, and Social Reconstructionism
3. Learning Theories
4. ARISTOTLE; AUGUSTINE, ST.; BAGLEY, WILLIAM C.; BODE, BOYD H.; BRAMELD, THEODORE; CHILDS, JOHN L.; COMENIUS, JOHANN; COUNTS, GEORGE S.; DEWEY, JOHN; FREIRE, PAULO; HERBERT, JOHANN; JAMES, WILLIAM; KILPATRICK, WILLIAM H.; MONTESSORI, MARIA; NEILL, A. S.; PESTALOZZI, JOHANN; PLATO; ROUSSEAU, JEAN-JACQUES; WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH.