Which philosophy of education do you think is most prevalent now?

I think it’s clear that American educational philosophy is dominantly and increasingly essentialist.  Essentialists believe that “learning should focus on essential basic skills, such as reading, writing, mathematics and, to a certain extent, science and geography” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 217). It is also characterized by a belief that “there is a critical core of information that all people should possess” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 218). This aligns completely to the current focus on standards (“the critical core of information”) and standardized testing (“that all people should possess”).

As I’ve said elsewhere in this forum, post-modernism in my experience does have influence on curriculum content but seems to have little power as a consensus philosophy and less over the overall structure or goals of educators at the elementary school level. Likewise, perennialism seems to have little or no influence over curriculum and educational philosophy today. Contemporary educational philosophy has little room for ‘great works’ (other than a very few exceptions like Shakespeare) and less for the concept of eternal ideas and values.

Progressivism is interesting. Labaree’s analysis makes complete sense to me. Progressivism is really two separate philosophies. The romantic, philosophical wing of progressivism derives from Dewey and represents the child-centric, artistic (for want of a better concise description) meme that pervades our society’s discussions of education. While this philosophy remains pervasive and powerful in discussion, it has little and lessening power over actual policy. The ‘administrative’ progressives (centered by Labaree on Edward Thorndike) focus instead on efficiency and social engineering. We still see their influence in IQ testing, tracking and vocational education but even this seems to be losing out to the essentialists. Perhaps the societal economic structures these administrative progressives intended to support are themselves fading away. Certainly, fear over the lack of seemingly fundamental skills in so much of our youth seems to have claimed priority over ‘higher’ concepts like social engineering.

As I reflected elsewhere, I am far from convinced that this essentialist move towards ‘core’ standards and testing can actually accomplish its stated objectives. Like so much of the reductionist modern impulse, it may be that too much is lost in the cold reduction of life to ‘essentials’. Twain is said to have quipped that analyzing comedy is like dissecting a frog, both seem to suffer in the process. Perhaps I am a philosophical progressive at heart (or have sympathies in that direction) but it seems to me that students and their education are similarly at risk from the ‘dissection’ of the body of learning and experience included in their education. 

How do demographics, culture, and politics influence the educational philosophies of school systems?

Each of demographics, culture and politics have major influences on the educational philosophies of school systems. This happens in at least two major ways, the demands they create and the input they have.

Demographics in particular create unique and powerful demands on the school system. SES and its correlated factors strongly influence the situation among students. According to Kauchak & Eggen (2005), low SES students generally score lower on intelligence and achievement tests, get lower grades, and have more attendance and disciplinary problems. These issues would appear to have a significant influence on the philosophical choices of the school district. It is easy to see how low SES school districts might tend towards essentialist philosophy: “Let’s just get the kids the basics at least!”

This may be an incorrect instinct. Perhaps these districts as much or more than middle or high SES districts cannot afford the drudgery inherent in a more standards based, results oriented philosophy. Perhaps there, more than anywhere else, a school philosophy which allows the students to discover themselves (progressivism) or a philosophy which teaches that there are “time honored absolutes” (perennialism) (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 229) or even a system which teaches against the dominant social paradigm (post-modernism) might inspire, influence and serve them better. In some cases, each of these arguments have been made and even tried. But it is too easy to see how the grinding fear of failure drives the districts to try to at least “get the basics right” through essentialism.

I am a CPR instructor and one of the very first things I was taught was that if I am doing CPR, the person is already dead. I can’t hurt them. This is a very freeing idea, allowing CPR practitioners to focus away from their natural fear of a dire situation and onto the putting their best efforts into their craft. Likewise, I wonder if this essentialist instinct as applied to the hardest hit demographic communities isn’t missing the fact that conventional, fear-based approaches have already failed these communities. Perhaps love-based, aspirational philosophies might work better or, anyway, as well but in a more empowering, humanistic fashion. 

Culture and politics also create demands for particular philosophical approaches. Cultural norms may well effect what is acceptable in terms of educational philosophy. As an example, a district supporting an avant garde university community might find itself under pressure to reflect post-modern values and philosophy in its curriculum. Cultural norms certainly effect what is acceptable in terms of educational outcomes, which in turn demands philosophies supporting or expected to support those desired outcomes.

Finally, demographics, culture and politics all influence educational philosophy at the macro, philosophical level as well. As mentioned above, a university community might well demand a post-modern template. Religious conservatives might advocate a perennialist focus on religious values and absolutes. High SES communities might look past test scores to imagine their children in the workplace, demanding a more problem solving, flexible philosophy and curriculum, a la progressivism. Locked in failure and fear of failure, it is natural that low SES communities might simply demand that their kids be “taught to read and write”. Cultural norms might well even influence the degree to which communities feel empowered to advocate for their children.

Looked at this way, it is clear that there is much more to the choice of educational philosophy than simple intellectual appeal. Powerful political constituencies will gravitate to philosophies that address their cultural, political or demographic experiences and concerns. 

Reference

Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

What kinds of controversies exist in curriculum?

At the macro-level, curriculum is a highly political discussion.

For people motivated by gender, race or class identities, how often these groups are portrayed and how they are represented is a major focus of attention.

Of course, there is major social controversy over creationism versus evolutionism in school curriculums.

More subtly, the portrayal of American history and patriotism is a subject of conflict between traditionalists and post-modernists.
 
More conventionally, there is constant conflict over educational philosophies. Many philosophical battles have been lost. Perennialism is largely dead in American public schools. Post-modernism is largely in contention as a teaching philosophy (as opposed to a filter on what is acceptably included in curriculum) at the collegiate level and above. But a robust battle exists between essentialists and progressivists. The NCLB movement and other sources of pull towards ‘basics’ and tight compliance to standards represent the essentialist argument. Those forces calling for a diversified curriculum including arts, music, PE and a more general, student centered curriculum are the modern heirs of progressivism.

Unfortunately, controversy exists at a very basic level in curriculum as well. It would seem any academic area are with more than one representative group has competing ‘official’ views on what the standards should be and thus what curriculum should contain.

Last, but hardly least, is the 200-plus year old fight about which political entity should control curriculum. Ceeded in the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate education rests constitutionally with the states. But the federal government (see NCLB), the states and the local governments all are in continual strife over who controls education, especially curriculum.
Reference

Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Would your role as a teacher change, based on the socio-economic status of the students and the community?

I think it would be considerably more challenging to work in low SES communities. The statistics in our text are daunting. High absenteeism, high drop out rates, challenging family situations, parents with little time, inclination or resource to support education, major distractions and pitfalls in the community. As I said in a previous post, it feels like teachers in those communities are standing beneath an avalanche.

The first thing a teacher would need is committment. It is no small thing, teaching in that environment. It would necessary to be clear on why the teacher went to work each day. It would have to about the kids. Not the parents. Not the school system. Not the salary. The kids. And even that would be tricky. I think such a teacher would have to be prepared to lose regularly. There’s no way even the best teacher could successfully support each child through the year. So such a teacher would have to be prepared to go beyond their capabilities for each child and still lose often. Very hard. On the other, this is perhaps the noblest fight. Fighting for children who nobody else is fighting for. If such a teacher could endure the challenge and the failures, they’d have every right to sleep soundly, knowing that angels would be on their shoulders each day, cheering.

It is true that there are elements of these challenges in communities of any SES. But the density would be so much higher.

 In which kind of school – elementary, middle/junior high, or high school – do teachers have the most autonomy? The least autonomy? What implications does this have for you as a prospective teacher?

It seems to me that elementary school teachers have the most autonomy. Alone in the classroom, the playground and the lunchroom with their students day after day they are both isolated and autonomous. This suits me fine. When I worked in the corporate world I thrived in branch offices, far from authority, even far from my boss. Typically, I reported to somebody a 12 hour plane flight away and that was about the right distance. I knew that help was available and I was generally wise enough to seek it when necessary but day to day I was quite comfortable setting my own strategy. I can already see that my relationship to the core curriculum will be creative and somewhat unorthodox. But at the same time, I am extremely familiar with the concept that unorthodox only survives if it produces extraordinary orthodox results and remains in full communication.

I also am very excited by the prospect of spending a full school year with the same group of students, getting to know them in detail and helping each one proceed to the full measure of their ability. It seems to me that the relative independence, authority and autonomy of elementary school teachers supports that intention as well.