Progressive Education, a Prophecy

The other day, in a TV news discussion addressing the radicalization of so many students in our colleges and universities, a member of the US House complained that, over the past two or three decades, our nation’s educational system has been infiltrated and co-opted by the ideological left. At one level he is correct, but at another, he is historically ignorant. The left’s takeover of education, especially our public educational system, has been a long, intentional process that began well over 100 years ago. Let me introduce you to a prophet who addressed the specifics of this highly successful movement 70 years ago, certainly more than a “two or three decades.” 

The prophet, Richard M. Weaver, died far too early in 1963 at the age of 53. A professor of English at the University of Chicago, he was far better known as a political philosopher and historian of intellectual movements. Weaver ultimately became one of the pioneers of modern conservative thought. He left behind many writings, but he is best known for three remarkable books: 

Ideas Have Consequences (1948)

The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953)

 

Visions of Order (1964)

If you hope to understand the ideas that have formed the basis of today’s conservative thought in America, these three brief books, along with Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, are a great starting point. 

Years ago, when I first read Weaver’s Visions of Order, I was captivated by his chapter on education, entitled, “Gnostics of Education.” He described how the process of educational radicalization really began in the nineteenth century when, in his words: 

“…there occurred a sinister change. This came about when state bureaucracies were created to set the terms and supervise the workings of the expanding public school system. State legislatures felt that they had to turn the actual administration of affairs over to a body of ‘experts’…these state departments of education became virtually autonomous in their power to define the goals, methods, and materials of public instruction. The final step came when they were able to require all prospective public school teachers through the high school level to take a set number of courses in a subject called ‘Education’…This is where the doctrinal revolution…really took place…The new education, for which the name ‘progressive’ has been pre-empted by its advocates, is in marked conflict with our basic traditions and culture.” [Visions of Order, p. 114-115]

Following this, Weaver lists “some of the chief assumptions and tenets of progressive education. The conflict between them and the principal teachings of the Judea-Christian classical heritage of the west will be immediately apparent.” 

I realize his list is neither brief nor couched in today’s politically-correct language, but believe it’s worth reading. As you read, keep in mind that, although the book was published in 1964, a year after Weaver’s death, most of it was written in the mid-1950s, almost 70 years ago. These eight assumptions could easily be the manifesto of one of today’s radicalized teachers' unions. I include them here just as they were published [See Visions of Order, p. 115-117].

1. There is no such thing as a body of knowledge which reflects the structure of reality and which everyone therefore needs to learn. Knowledge is viewed as an instrumentality which is true or false according to the way it is applied to concrete situations or the way it serves the needs of the individual. Since these educators have embraced the notion that the essence of the world is change, there is no final knowledge about anything. The truths of yesterday are the falsehoods of today and the truths of today will be the falsehoods of tomorrow.
2. This being so, the object of education is not to teach knowledge, but to “teach students.” As they translate this into practice, it means that everyone should be adapted to the child as child, to the youth as youth, and to the particular group according to its limitations. There are no ideals or standards of performance which these are bound to measure themselves by or to respect.
3. As a corollary of the above principal, the child should be encouraged to follow his own desires in deciding what he should study, and what aspects of what subjects, and at what times.
4. The teacher must not think of himself as being in authority, because authority is evil. The teacher is there as a “leader,” but the duty of the leader is only to synchronize and cooperate with the work of the group.
5. The student should never be made afraid of anything connected with the school. Marks and competitions are bad because they instill feelings of superiority and inferiority, which are undemocratic. 
6. The mind is not to be exalted over the senses: democracy requires that sensory and “activist” learning be valued on a par with intellectual learning. The mentally slow or retarded are not to be made to feel that they are lacking; it is better to impugn the whole tradition of intellectual education than to injure the feelings of the less bright and the lazy.
7. Consequently, there should be less education through symbols like language and figures and more through using the hands-on concrete objects. It is more important to make maps than to learn them, said John Dewey, the grand pundit of the revolutionary movement.
8. The general aim is to train the student so that he will adjust himself not simply to the existing society, as is sometimes inferred from their words, but to society conceived as social democracy.

Here’s an abbreviated view of Weaver’s conclusions regarding these aims of progressive education:

• Absolute truth does not exist. No knowledge is binding.
• The mind is a tyrant which denies the rights of the body and must be democratized, forced into equity.
• The student’s aim is not to save his soul, inherit past wisdom, or advance himself or human knowledge, but to become a member of a future, ill-defined utopia.

How sad that Weaver recognized, understood, and warned us about this back in the 1950s and yet as a nation we didn’t listen…a prophet in his own land. One can only hope that the American people will come to realize the importance of local elections, particularly school board elections.

Of course, this radicalization has affected more than just education, but every aspect of society. Can we overcome this societal radicalization? I'm not sure. Back in 1949 -- when I was just a little kid -- another modern prophet, T. S. Eliot, wrote:

"Our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity" [Notes Toward the Definition of Culture, p. 17].