My Opinion on 5 Works about Education, Teaching, and Learning - Volume 5

These five works range from the year 1751 to 2014. That's 263 years of interesting thoughts on education.

'Idea of the English School' by Benjamin Franklin 7 January 1751

Benjamin Franklin is an amazing person. The more you learn about him the more amazing he is. He was abused as an indentured servant by his brother and became a runaway. Became wealthy as a printer and famous as a scientist. His autobiography started modern self-help literature. He drew political cartoons and wrote popular life advice. He wrote a piece on population growth that inspired Malthus, who inspired Darwin to come up with evolution. He taught swimming in England. He invented bifocal glasses and a new type of stove. He was a colonel in the Pennsylvania militia, and later President of Pennsylvania. He convinced France to support the US in the Revolutionary War, which helped win it. He proved lightning is electricity. He started the post office. He started fire services and libraries. It's therefore no surprise that he also started schools, which would eventually become the University of Pennsylvania.

Franklin wrote several articles on schools and education. This one he founded as an alternative to another that he founded, which did classical training in Greek and Latin. The two schools were connected. The plan is just 19 paragraphs long, and I've never read a better school plan. It covers six classes or grade levels, and would help most kids develop better than the twelve grade levels that the United States has now. Also, look at the date, 1751. That means the start of the American Revolution in 1775 is 24 years away, meaning there were kids that went to Franklin's school and fought in the Revolutionary War as adults.

This article helped remind me that Franklin was a genius in thought and action across all domains (even though the school later had troubles, which he also wrote a good article on).

'A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge' by Thomas Jefferson 18 June 1779

Many of the Founding Fathers pointed out a significant governance problem. Jefferson states the problem as: "And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest;" How do you get wise and honest people? Jefferson hoped to solve this problem through public education and government schools. The United States currently has public schools, but those who form and administer the laws are neither wise nor honest. So it would seem that Jefferson is refuted, but Jefferson had a quite different structure and purpose.

Jefferson's plan is a selection plan, to find the best and advance them, but those who don't advance have still been educated up to the level that they could succeed at. All kids could go for three years for free. The elementary school would teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The reading material would be the history of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Britain, and America. After that only the top students would be selected and move on. In grammar school the subjects would be expanded. From there only the top students would move on to college. Parents could still choose to pay to continue sending their children to school, but the public expense would only carry the top of the class. Only a small number of people would go all the way through. A miniscule percentage compared to the government schools in the United States today.

Jefferson's plan didn't pass and wasn't enacted. I don't think the results would have been what he wanted anyway. Prussia and Singapore implemented similar systems to his idea with some success, but as authoritarian governments. It's contradictory to use the force and power of government to educate people to resist the force and power of government. Although you can see the theoretical genius of his plan where everyone learns literacy, numeracy, and history as a base, and the top candidates are selected for advancement from all backgrounds rich and poor, I'm sure it would have ended up as corrupted as our system is now.

This article helped me realize a different direction the United States education system could have gone, along with Jefferson's recognition of the societal issues and his struggle with a potential solution.

'Talks to Teachers on Psychology: and to Students on some of Life's Ideals' by William James 1899

This is a great work. James even makes a point that applies to this day, there isn't really a new psychology, we just know more about parts of the brain and have run some statistical studies, but what is true for our psychology was true of people 2,000 years ago.

When I was first reading this book parts of it reminded me of Maria Montessori's work and I wondered if he had read her books. I was surprised to find that she wouldn't publish a book for another decade, so it's possible she was partially inspired and informed by James. I like how much James recognizes the importance of imitation and emulation, and I like his emphasis that learning cannot occur without interest. I dare say, a place that had a school designed by Franklin, and with teachers informed by these lectures of James, would be an impressive place of learning.

This book helped me realize that psychology is important in education, but the psychology has been the same since long before the word psychology was invented (and the importance of interest, imitation, and emulation).

'The Theory of Education in the United States' by Albert Jay Nock 1931

Nock talks about how our education system was built and is maintained on the assumptions of equality (meaning everyone is equally educable), democracy (popular access and control), and literacy (as the way to have good governance). Nock notes that all of these are wrong and have failed. He also notes that education in the United States is basically non-existent. Even in the universities, what exists is training and not education. That change took place as government schools became popular in the late 1800s with the idea that everyone should be educated.

What educated meant before 1900 was an understanding of the development of the Great Tradition, which is the development of western civilization from ancient Greece and Rome, through medieval Europe, to the modern era. But, only few people are capable of that. So to educate everyone, the idea of education had to be redefined to mean training in various things. The education in all school levels fell, and no one is able to increase it again. The universities just adapted by offering a variety of courses that students might want to take and making them easy, trying to get as many students as possible, and moving the burden of learning from the student to the instructor.

In the century since his series of speeches the issues have stayed basically the same. Nock does note that the training is a good thing, but it should be called training instead of education. And that because the society has tricked itself into thinking that training is education, there is nowhere that actually offers education, which is a problem.

This book helped me realize how significant the change was in the late 1800s of the quality and character of education in the United States.

'Teaching Johnny to Think' by Leonard Peikoff 2014

I like a lot of what Peikoff has to say, and disagree with several parts. He's an Objectivist philosopher that studied with Ayn Rand. Her book 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology' is good and explains how conceptualization works. That helps Peikoff in some ways, but I think it allows him to go too far in his emphasis on the teacher leading the student in a rigid structure, even to the point of saying the teacher should spoon-feed the student. This can work, but I have my hesitations. He completely disagrees with the student following their interests, he's doesn't like students doing research until later years, he prefers lectures, he misunderstands Montessori's teaching methods for older children, and he gives a strawman example argument against group discussions (although the overall criticism is fair). In some areas he seems somewhat self-contradictory, which means context becomes important and there are multiple approaches that can work.

I do like these five quotes:

"Education is the systematic process of training the minds of the young, both in the essential content and the proper method."

"There are three broad principles of good teaching: Motivation - Cognitive Integration - Sequence and Structure"

"I strongly advocate the Renaissance approach - early, selective, and concentrated."

"I am the staunchest advocate of essay writing in every subject."

"The best way to teach is one-on-one, not in the form of presenting the material, but in going over the student’s writing."

This book helped me realize that there are good arguments for different approaches to teaching and learning, but there are also unique overlapping points which start to become apparent across works (such as what Peikoff calls the Renaissance approach, and the utility of one-on-one review of writing).

Conclusion

It amazes me that the work from 1751 is as good as the work from 2014. In education that applies over a much larger period of time, I would say from Quintilian in ancient Rome. The work from 1751 led to the actual founding of a school, so maybe it's an even better work. People have been learning, teaching, and thinking about learning and teaching for a very long time. It's something that always has to be worked on, always pushed forward toward a never-ending horizon.

Find more at JeffThinks.com or JeffreyAlexanderMartin.com