Montessori, Dewey and Capitalism: Educational Theory for a Free Market In Education
For years, school-choice proponents have assessed and reassessed the possibilities of expanding government support for vouchers. Jerry Kirkpatrick’s Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism: Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education is a refreshing alternative to those tired discussions of political coalitions, legislative machinations, and disparate school-choice programs. Indeed, Kirkpatrick’s book is one of the first to consider the methodological and instructional foundations of an educational free market, and the author does so in an original and engaging way.
Kirkpatrick argues that the goal of education should be to cultivate self-esteem and independence and reject coercion and rationalism, thereby freeing the young mind and encouraging children “to be actively curious and practically self-assured.” To achieve these goals, he constructs a theory based on “concentrated attention,” a psychological concept central to the educational theories of Italian educator and philosopher Maria Montessori. Kirkpatrick defines concentrated attention as the “heightened awareness of one object out of the many that exist in our field of awareness.” According to Kirkpatrick, most educational approaches seek to either coerce children or neglect them altogether, but concentrated attention focuses on educational methods that nurture the child. He meticulously details the proper methods of employing concentrated attention and also outlines the content of education—the knowledge, values, and skills—needed to thrive in a free society.
Where did the idea of concentrated attention come from? Kirkpatrick finds its first clear expression among the child-centered educational theories of Enlightenment thinkers like John Amos Comenius, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the nineteenth century Johann Pestalozzi, Johann Herbart, and Friedrich Froebel further developed the psychological and philosophical foundations of child-centered education. In the early twentieth century John Dewey and Maria Montessori provided the modern theoretical foundations of the concept of concentrated attention. One may have wished, as I did, that Kirkpatrick had augmented this chapter by discussing the slew of dubious child-centered educational practices that followed Dewey and Montessori. Even so, Kirkpatrick’s history of child-centered versus teacher-centered theories of education is highly instructive.
While Montessori’s ideas provide a solid foundation to Kirkpatrick’s theory, Dewey’s educational theories appear to undermine it. Dewey was a collectivist who sought to use state-sponsored coercion to properly “socialize” children. In isolation, some of Dewey’s ideas may resemble Montessori’s concept of concentrated attention, but Dewey wasn’t interested in cultivating independent young minds. He was interested in using public schools to cultivate dependency on the State.
In defense of his use of Dewey’s ideas, Kirkpatrick argues against conflating Dewey’s political and educational philosophies. On one hand, Kirkpatrick acknowledges that Dewey and his Progressive colleagues sought government control over schooling. On the other, he suggests that Progressives wanted to free students from coercive educational environments by urging public schools to adopt student-centered instructional approaches. Kirkpatrick calls this a “contradiction,” but many critics maintain that Dewey’s political and educational philosophies were compatible. For example, in Anti-intellectualism in American Life, historian Richard Hofstadter noted that Dewey assumed “a kind of pre-established harmony between the needs and interest of the child and ‘the society we should like to realize.’” Kirkpatrick’s effort at separating Dewey’s political and educational philosophy is not entirely persuasive.
It is also difficult to agree with Kirkpatrick’s contention that there is an underlying compatibility between the educational theories of Dewey and Montessori. Dewey identified serious differences between his educational theories and Montessori’s. In Schools of Tomorrow, for example, he argued that Montessori adhered to “older” psychological theories, which asserted that “people have ready-made faculties which can be trained and developed for general purposes.” Dewey boasted that he ascribed to “newer” psychological theories, which claimed that children have “special impulses of action to be developed through their use in preserving and perfecting life in the social and physical conditions under which it goes on.” These substantive differences in their basic assumptions about the nature of learning required fundamental differences in their respective instructional approaches.
Aside from the difficulties of attempting to redeem Dewey’s educational thought, one nagging problem with Kirkpatrick’s book is that while he acknowledges that the content of education would be “freely chosen by the education consumer in a marketplace of ideas,” he doesn’t concede that consumers should also freely choose the method of education.
There is no guarantee that parents would flock to schools that implemented educational approaches based on concentrated attention. In a free market in education, parents who want to raise their children to become confident, independent adults might find concentrated attention-based instruction a desirable alternative to existing educational approaches. Even if they don’t, they should have the choice. Kirkpatrick’s success is in offering them a choice worthy of attention.
Comment by David on 9 December 2009:
I invite you to see
A school for the 21st Century.
Individuality and Democracy: A Way of Life
At Sudbury Valley School (http://www.sudval.com/), students from preschool through high school age explore the world freely, at their own pace and in their own unique ways. They learn to think for themselves, and learn to use Information Age tools to unearth the knowledge they need from multiple sources. They develop the ability to make clear logical arguments, and deal with complex ethical issues. Through self-initiated activities, they pick up the basics; as they direct their lives, they take responsibility for outcomes, set priorities, allocate resources, and work with others in a vibrant community.
Trust and respect are the keys to the school’s success. Students enjoy total intellectual freedom, and unfettered interaction with other students and adults. Through being responsible for themselves and for the school’s operation, they gain the internal resources needed to lead effective lives.
Sudbury Valley School was founded in 1968. Located in an old stone mansion and a converted barn on the mid-nineteenth century Bowditch estate, the ten acre campus adjoins extensive conservation lands.
Independence
Creating leaders
Sudbury Valley School is a place where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated.
The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility.
In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises.
The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy.
Involvement
The day at Sudbury Valley
Whatever the time of day, and whatever their age,
students are all doing what they want to do, with great intensity and concentration. Most often students are not concerned about whether learning is taking place. Doing what they choose to do is the common theme; learning is the by-product.
The school teems with activity. Adults and students of all ages mix freely. People can be found everywhere talking, reading and playing. Some may be in the photolab developing or printing pictures. Some may be in a dance class or building a bookshelf in the woodshop. There are almost always people making music of one kind or another, usually in several places. You might see someone studying French, biology, or algebra. People may be at computers, doing administrative work in the office, playing chess, rehearsing a show, or participating in role-playing games. People will be trading stickers and trading lunches. A group may be selling pizza that they made to raise money for new equipment. In the art room, people will be drawing; they might also be sewing, or painting, or working with clay, either on the wheel or by hand.
Always there are people playing happily and busily, indoors and outdoors, in all seasons and all weather. Always there are groups talking, and always there are individuals quietly reading here and there.
Learning
Experiencing life
One of the things most adults notice first about Sudbury Valley is the ease of communication. People, no matter what their age, treat each other with easy respect. There is a comfortable air of self-confidence, the confidence typical of individuals pursuing the goals they set for themselves. Things are almost never quiet, and the atmosphere is electric with enthusiasm, but not chaotic or frenetic. Visitors speak of feeling a certain order, even though it is clearly a place full of intense activity.
The students at Sudbury Valley are doing what they want, but they are not necessarily choosing what comes easily. A closer look reveals that they are always challenging themselves; that they are acutely aware of their own weaknesses and strengths, and likely to be working hardest on their weaknesses. Along with their ebullient good spirits, there is an underlying seriousness — even the six-year-olds know that they, and only they, are responsible for their education. They have been given the gift of tremendous trust, and they understand that this gift is as big a responsibility as it is a delight. They are acutely aware that it is very unusual for young people to be given this much freedom or this much responsibility.
Growing up shouldering this responsibility gives them confidence in their own abilities — they get a “track record”. Self-motivation is never a question; that’s all there is.
Although the school has no curriculum, the reality is that most students develop many valuable tools that will be useful to them as adults. They learn how to concentrate. They learn to ponder ethical questions. They learn to ask for what they want, and strive to get it. They learn how to try something and relish success, and they learn how to try something and fail at it — and try again.
They learn to know themselves.
Beyond the description lies the reality of the school: a place where freedom is cherished, where mutual respect is the norm, where children and adults are comfortable with each other, where learning is integrated into life. Our bright, open, lively students are the best evidence of the school’s success.
Confidence
Educating yourself
Graduate Says:
I didn’t really think about getting an education. I didn’t understand the idea of having to artificially “get” an education. I thought that you lived in the world and you got smarter because every day you were learning. I thought that there was no way you could get dumber unless you were erasing stuff out of your brain. It seemed to me that one day you were talking to someone about one subject and another day you were talking to someone about another, and eventually you’d get around to all of them.
Outsiders would ask, “What classes do you do?” And you’d think, “Classes? We don’t do classes, you know. Look around. There are no classrooms here.” They’d say, “What did you learn today?” and we’d think, “What did we learn today? What are you talking about?” Because it wasn’t as if you went into the library and learned your facts for the day. You had a dozen conversations with people. We weren’t learning subject by subject. We were learning in a much more organic manner. You would be doing a lot of different things and you would learn them in little bits and pieces that would start adding up to much bigger pictures. You wouldn’t really know where it came from a lot of the time. By the time you were done learning about something, information was coming from so many different sources, from books and from people you were talking to, and from a long drawn out experience, that you had no idea how you learned it.
Governance
A democratic community
The school is governed on the model of a traditional New England Town Meeting. The daily affairs of the school are managed by the weekly School Meeting, at which each student and staff member has one vote. Rules of behavior, use of facilities, expenditures, staff hiring, and all the routines of running an institution are determined by debate and vote at the School Meeting. At Sudbury Valley, students share fully the responsibility for effective operation of the school and for the quality of life at school.
Infractions of the rules are dealt with through the School Meeting’s judicial system, in which all members of the school community participate. The fair administration of justice is a key feature of Sudbury Valley and contributes much to the students’ confidence in the school.
Parents participate in setting school policies. Legally, the school is a non-profit corporation, and every parent becomes a voting member of the Assembly, as the corporate membership is called. The Assembly also includes students, staff, and other elected members. It meets at least once a year to decide all questions of broad operational and fiscal policy.
Admissions
Entering Sudbury Valley
Sudbury Valley has a policy of open admissions, accepting all applicants who have the capacity for full participation in the school’s program as self-directed, autonomous members of the school’s community. Applicants must be at least four years old. The school does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, or national or ethnic origin. An admissions interview gives applicants and their families an opportunity to learn more about the school. Everyone interested in pursuing enrollment must first spend a week at school as a visiting student so that the school, the student, and the student’s family have a chance to decide about enrollment. Enrollment may take place at any time during the school year, as long as there are openings available, and is for a full year from the date of entry.
The environment of freedom and support at Sudbury Valley has been sought out by people from a wide area. In order to attend, students commute daily, sometimes from great distances. The diversity of their backgrounds is a microcosm of the larger community; what they share is a commitment to the school’s educational goals.
Transitions
Leaving Sudbury Valley
Most students choose to seek a high school diploma when they leave Sudbury Valley. The school offers a diploma to students who have, in the judgment of the school community, adequately defended the thesis that they have taken responsibility for preparing themselves to be effective adults in the larger community. In order to obtain a diploma, a student must have attended the school for at least three years.
Many Sudbury Valley students have chosen to continue their education in colleges and universities all over the country, and abroad. Many have entered directly into the worlds of business, trades, arts, crafts, and technical vocations.
Several in-depth studies (published by The Sudbury Valley School Press) have found that our former students see themselves as confident and competent members of society, capable of defining meaningful goals for their lives and finding ways to achieve them.
Alumni Say…
“We were so busy. We picked hard things to do most of the time. Everything was always, ‘You have got to get one step further.’ It was never stagnant. Everything was a challenge.”
“The bulk of what you learn at Sudbury Valley is life. You learn how to deal with people and how to get things done and how to organize all the things you learn. Some of it you learn from seeing adults do it, or participating with adults. But most of what you learn, you learn from the other kids, and it has to do with life – how you live and how things happen. We learned it together.”
“We had our own world. We were solid in our own world. It was a world of children.”
“The atmosphere was a mixture of everything. You could walk around the school and find somebody baking cakes, or having a heated argument, or talking about Hinduism, or making modifications on the barn. You could go sit in the sun or you could go sit in the sewing room. The school made me self-sufficient.”
“I believe that everything you do helps everything else you do, because if you’re doing one hard thing, it’s not that different from doing another hard thing. It may take different physical skills, or maybe different mental habits, but it takes the same kind of concentration and requires the same kind of thinking.”
“The school gave me the gift of time to let my own interests rise to the surface. When you sit down to paint, you don’t just sit and paint. You have to think about what you’re doing and why. Any creative effort, perhaps any effort at all, requires a great deal of thought, even reading a book. You don’t just read a book. You think about what you read. Otherwise you’re doing it for nothing. The school gave us the gift of time to relax, to have those things come to the surface that were there; it gave us the time for reflection, for the introspection that you need to really develop your own creativity.”
“School was something I looked forward to every day.”
FAQ
A Bird’s Eye View of Sudbury Valley
http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_09.html