Some Thoughts on Education - ESSENTIALISM

Sincere gratitude to Prof. Rhodora Nicdao, PhD. of AdMU for the opportunity to tackle this school of thought, still so relevant at present with all these reforms in education not just here 

but also in the U.S.

ESSENTIALISM and EDUCATION

Nature and Context	·       Essentialism is more of an Educational theory that has parallel elements or themes with Philosophies of Idealism, Realism and Thomism. ·       Two waves of Essentialism in US Education history: 1930s – promoters came from prominent educators and professors vs. progressivism 1950s – reacted to new educ theory called “life adjustment” (personal & social needs of children as priority over academic subjects).  Together with their more contemporary counterparts are business leaders and neo-conservative political forces such as Rickover, Hirsch and Ravitch Both waves of advocates agree to a common view that progressives are to be blamed for the ills of the educational system which are; §  lacking standards, §  prevailing permissiveness resulting to delinquency, unpatriotism, under education of the youth ·       Essentialist educational theory fundamentally aims to transmit to the young a structured and orderly view of reality ·       Foremost advocates are include Willam Chanler Bagley (Colombia University), Michael Demiashkevich, Walter Ryle, M.L. Shane, Gary Whipple, Arthur Bestor (University of Illinois), Max Rafferty, Hymna Rickover, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Chester Finn, Diane Ravitch
Epistemology	·       Conception of reality or knowledge of reality for essentialists is from social, economic and cultural sources rather than methaphysical.   Some Essentialist derive positions from one of either Idealism, Realism or Thomism.
Axiology	·       Conservative view – education’s primary function is transmitting the funded and approved knowledge and values of the culture ·       As being reactionary to progressives, essentialist values are favoring stability, fixedness/already set notions and immutable to change. ·       Has semblance of Liberal perspective which emphasizes knowledge, skills, values (KSA) that enhance social efficiency ·       Opposes certain aspects of Naturalism (such as the stress on educational potency of person’s feelings and emotions, for essentialists the human mind cultivated by intellectual disciplines is primary), Pragmatism (such as open and evolutionary universe of constant change, essentialists prefer a secure and stable reference point) and Existentialism (such as human subjectivity and self-definition, for essentialists transmitting an antecedent curriculum to learners is more important). ·       Suspicious of innovation or change hence essentialist oppose testing curricular or instructional innovations
Goals of Education	·       Training for intellectual life, citizenship, vocation, profession (Essentialism aims to provide academic literacy and build the civic knowledge base of the citizenry).  The belief is that an informed intelligent citizenry will resolve social issues.
Role of the School	·      Specific function – transmit to the young generative skills and general intellectual disciplines to perpetuate cultural heritage o   Schools as agencies of cultural continuity and stability o   Social malaise will be helped with schools that have stable academic environments o   Non-essential for schools – “social adjustment”, career education, consumer education, cooking classes, activities that can be learned elsewhere (dilutes core skills and subjects) ·       Strictly academic role for schools (foundational skills and intellectual subject matters) o   Academic literacy to build civic knowledge base o   Examine issues academically in the subject matter
Curriculum	·       Arthur Bestor, foremost essentialist, prescribes what he calls as Intellectual Disciplines (only 5 essential subjects – History, Math, Science, Foreign Language and English) which should be structured according to scope and sequence.  Emphasis per level is as follows: o   Elementary – reading, writing, artithmetic then general natural science, geography and history o   Junior High School – abstract Math reasoning (algebra then to higher math), the chronological History, discipline-based Science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry), Foreign Langauage should raise to grammar analysis o   Senior High School – Math should be advance Algebra, Plane Geometry, Trigonometry, Analytic Geometry, Calculus; a Systematic Chemistry, Physics, Biology;  with History focusing on chronological  pattern and structure; a more accurate, lucide and graceful proficiency in English, and learning another new Foreign Language if done with one
Methods	·       Differentiated and organized learning experience for students (does not allow students to organize undifferentiated experiences) through subject matter curriculum with each subject or intellectual discipline organized separately from other subjects (*opposed to integration, multi/interdisciplinary or spiral approach in teaching endorsed and prescribed by K-12 constructivism) with carefully arranged scope and sequence ·       Rejects curricular innovations (such as experimentalist problem-solving and progressive projects) ·       Learning happens when elements of a subject are studied in the context of its discipline and not diluted or muddled by a mix or infusion of other disciplines or non-essentials to the discipline
Views on/of Teacher – Students	·       The role of the teacher is to transmit antecedent (prior existing and approved), structured and ordered curriculum to learners who absorb by training their mental abilities and powers ·       Teachers are academic authority figures (content specialists, skillful organizers of content for instructional purposes) ·       Teachers should have liberal knowledge but grounded on intellectual disciplines. ·       Teachers are mature representatives of culture competent in subject content and instruction
Strengths of Essentialism	·       Emphasizes the role of schools in promoting intellectual disciplines, raising intellectual abilities of students to become effective and functional citizens and workers. ·       Inclined to raising the rigor in learning ·       Systematic in organizing content or knowledge, there is progression in the development of accumulating knowledge and raising intellectual skills.
Criticisms of Essentialism	·       Too compartmentalized to a subject or discipline, disregards the integral nature of the learner and society.  Learning cannot be dichotomized to isolated subjects but exists in dynamic interplay within the person and immersed in society. ·       Disregards the findings of modern research in multiple intelligences of individuals and not solely confined to cognitive skills.
Illustration –  Cite an education reform, trend or issue which can be attributed to Essentialism	By preference, I feel that I am a progressivist but I suppose it was serendipitous that I get the topic on Essentialism.  I have appreciated more its value (renders clarity on importance of knowledge transmission) despite its extreme edges.  I agree with essentialist ideal of primordial importance to intellectual disciplining but it is not all that there is to education.  The human person is not just the mind, especially not solely the mind.  The person of the learner is multifaceted and social context makes it even more like a mosaic. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the US I think the CCSS takes advantage of the strengths of essentialism and other educational theories but essentialism is its dominant driver or hue.  Setting standards, or the floor, cut off or targets of what students are expected to learn at each grade level in the mastery of content is Essentialist. Schools all over the United States are adapting to Common Core State Standards or, as they’re known, the Common Core.  The standards were established as a way to “clearly communicate what is expected of students at each grade level.” (1)   More than the issue of Federal government control over individual State policies, to me, the emphasis of the US in common core is a step of Essentialism, which has its pitfalls.   I wouldn’t say it is exclusively essentialist, but has strong scents of Essentialism.  CCSS of course embraces progressivist interdisciplinary methods or the experimentalists innovative approaches using technology, but the manner it proceeds in strengthening intellectual disciplines or setting targets per subject content such English, Math, Science then eventually history is certainly anchored on essentialist principles. Although, CCSS advocates say it is not a curriculum but are lightposts to target if learning is measured, it still is going back to what’s essential in the content and making sure the learners get it. Looking at the nature of CCSS, which are as follows: The standards are: 1.     Research and evidence based 2.     Clear, understandable, and consistent 3.     Aligned with college and career expectations 4.     Based on rigorous content and the application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills 5.     Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards 6.     Informed by other top-performing countries to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society (2) The fourth characteristic of the standards is what gives away its essentialist nature. One issue with the common core is reconciling varied context of learners and the culture they are immersed in.  Even with the claim, that the standards “draw on the most important international models, as well as research and input from numerous sources, including educators from kindergarten through college, state departments of education, scholars, assessment developers, professional organizations, parents and students, and members of the public”, educators critical of state standards view them as imposed antecedent curriculum that carry a particular cultural, if not political, agenda. The very strong claim that because the design and content of the standards have been refined through successive drafts and numerous rounds of state feedback, the standards represent a synthesis of the best elements of standards-related work in all states and other countries to date, (2) does not pacify counter-advocates. Another worry about CCSS is testing, the assessment that comes with it.  Because assessment of test results are tied up with teachers evaluation, there is a trend to prepare for the test instead really of genuine learning being the spirit of teaching.   Going back to the essentials of a subject or discipline is good, but it should not swing too far as to neglect the aspects of emotions and the soul.  Fundamentally, the human person is multi-faceted and intelligence is a web rather than a folder where files are neatly stacked.  Standardized tests cannot evaluate complex thought, can be culturally biased and will not be able to evaluate non-verbal (Strauss, 2012).  CCSS impinges traditional core subject standards into the diverse environment of learning and intellectual exploration and these will be what US kids are required to know and tested on.  For me, in its pure form, Essentialism will be harmful.  It can be one-sidedly developing one aspect of the learner, his mental knowledge, hence a tendency to promote intellectualism, and detrimentally neglecting other important areas.  The issue of loving, as a value or concept, for instance is a good phenomenon to point out.  It’s a human aspect which is both social and emotional but also involves the head.  Intellectuals may succeed in explaining or understanding the elements and examples of love, or other values for that matter, but when confronted with dealing with issues of real loving relationships, intellectuals usually falter.  If schools do not train students to manage emotions, a training on awareness and self-control or the socio-emotional learning, they end up making wrong decisions in intellectualizing love and relations. Improving education, raising learning levels of students, is not solely resolved by essentialist approach more particularly if by imposed standards.  The bigger question is how to support teaching in the ground to reach standard level for learners.  Support means not just availability of excellent resources such as adequate budget for teachers and teachers improvement but also the issue of equitable access to these resources by those on the ground.  It would be too reductionist to put all hope for school improvement in a vacuum of standards alone. The following case of common core implementation in New Jersey stresses this point.  “At the time, the New Jersey Supreme Court was an unusually progressive and foresighted court, and it responded to the state's proposal for standards with a series of landmark decisions that speak to some of the same issues raised today by the Common Core. The court agreed that standards for what schools should teach and students should learn seemed like a good idea. But standards don't deliver themselves. They require well-prepared and supported professional staff, improved instructional resources, safe and well-equipped facilities, reasonable class sizes, and—especially if they are supposed to help schools compensate for the inequality that exists all around them—a host of supplemental services like high quality preschools, expanded summer and after-school programs, health and social services, and more. In effect, the court said adopting “high expectations” curriculum standards was like passing out a menu from a fine restaurant. Not everyone who gets a menu can pay for the meal. So the court tied New Jersey's core curriculum standards to the most equitable (and seemingly generous) school funding mandates in the country.” (3) The danger with essentialist standards imposed from above is that it can become sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths of bureaucrats and politicians.  In dealing with education reform, we must look beyond and around to include not just the essential content and rigors of the disciplines but also the variables and resources needed to support learning rigorous essential content. Having distilled Essentialism as a educational theory through this assignment also made me think and look back into the inclinations or leanings of our different teachers.  Apparently, it helped me identify who adheres to essentialism and who inclines toward a different school of thought.  It’s an important context to understand as I try to put my learning and/or realizations together.
References: (1)  Tyre, Peg, Common Core: What it means to American Education. April 13, 2013.  http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/30/common-core-standards-means-american-education. Retrieved June 2, 2015. (2)  Read the Standards, http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/. Retrieved June 2, 2015. (3)  Karp, Stan, Problems with the Common Core, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml, retrieved June 2, 2015.