Customer Reviews

Paideia Program

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Mortimer Adler spells out an ideal balance of learning experiences which result in highly literate and competent students. The Paideia proposal is not a recipe for what content to teach but a structure for making sure the student is not trapped in a school with only one way of processing thought. Didactic, or direct, instruction should not take up more than a fifth of the time; at least a fifth should be spent in open-ended seminars that allow students to find personal meaning in conversation about significant topics; the rest of the time should be spent in coached projects which require a synthesis of knowledge and skills. Current jargon would identify these elements with authentic assessment, multiple intelligences, and self-efficacy. This is a best practice model that assumes 'what's best for the best is best for all' and asks all teachers to consider all students capable of reflective thought and creative problem-solving. The original reading list was heavily eurocentric but the current usage is not limited in any way except that readings must have depth and meaning. In its pure form, the Paideia Proposal respects teachers as professionals who design curriculum, so it is incompatible with formulaic philosophies that use teachers as technicians. The Paideia Center in North Carolina provides training; Terry Roberts has written a recent book on it. Any parent or educator serious about deep literacy would embrace the Paideia Proposal.

This is the American philosopher Mortimer Adler's attempt to apply his philosophy to real-world problems. His biggest concern was the inability of the educational system to teach children to think (as opposed to memorizing a string of mind-numbing facts). To accomplish this goal he, along with education professionals, developed a program based on the Socratic method of teaching.

For example, one exercise might consist of the following instructions from the teacher:

"Today I am going to show an object to you and I want you to just look at it for one minute in absolute silence, At the end of that time, please write what you saw first and what question you have about the object. Remember, no talking, because once someone talks it disrupts and alters the others' thinking."

This is a book with ideas that will challenge the way you have always thought about education. Indeed, it will make you question what our educational system is doing. If the purpose of an education is the creation of a well-rounded individual who questions and reasons and analyzes, then one will have to conclude that it has been an abject failure. Indeed, our society is increasingly split along two lines - a well-educated, erudite group that has developed a mocking attitude toward traditional conventions and manners and a non-educated group that carries a growing anti-intellectual bias.

For further information about the Paidea Proposal, you can visit the Radical Academy Site. As a father who has seen his son prosper under such a program, I would recommend that any parent seriously interested in obtaining a true education for their child explore the possibilites presented in this book.

Mortimer Adler's "Paideia Proposal," ("paideia" means "education" in Greek) is a book which intends to offer a stern antidote to many "progressive" ideas in education. One might call Adler an educational conservative - an "essentialist" who believes that education is of value in itself (and should not be justified by its utilitarian value). Adler also believes in the value of a liberal arts education for all, the role of order and discipline in education, and the value of cultivating the intellect as the primary goal of k-12 education.

Adler's Paideia proposal "breaks" education into three types which students should receive in equal measure:

(a) knowledge acquisition: this is where direct teacher/student instruction goes on, and where the student learns to store and recall facts.

(b) developing of intellectual skill: this is where the student "learns by doing," and practices the skill under the teacher's facilitation.

(c) increase in understanding and insight: this is where students learn to evaluate, analyze, synthesize, and create ideas from ideas. Students engage in teacher-led discussion and reflections while learning "higher order thinking" skills.

I agree with these goals, but disagree much with Adler's approach. A key criticism I have of Adler's writing is that, like many philosophers of education, he speaks of students as they exist in theory rather than in practice, and tends to see them as a big monolithic group (while he says he doesn't).

Put differently and bluntly, if I had a child, I might be tempted to send it to a Paidiea school, but would be hesitant to suggest that every child should be forced into this model.

What makes the Paideia project unworkable in practice is Adler's insistence that "one size" of education "fits all." Alder does not believe in tracking of any kind, dismissing it as very undemocratic (by which he really means unegalitarian). He writes as if things like differences in intelligence (by the measure of IQ) do not exist. He repeats frequently the idea that "all children are educable," but turns it cleverly into "all children are capable of learning and absorbing the same stuff as all others." (He does bring this up as a possible criticism but dismisses the problem with high-sounding rhetoric, intimating that naysayers simply don't believe in equality.)

As a special educator, I think this idea of a "one size fits all" education is a pleasant sounding disaster. As one of my colleagues put it, "It is not a God-given right to comprehend Algebra II," by which he means that some simply learn slower, and are more limited than others. (I think Alder would realize his mistake when he put a child with Downs Syndrome, mental retardation, or autism into his Paidiea school.) Alder's point that we should challenge all students is well taken, but he doesn't seem to take seriously the FACT that students differ not only in "learning style" but in innate ability. To subject each child - regardless of ability - to the same curriculum is as unfair as hasty and strict tracking.

The other disaster in Adler's proposal is the idea that all K-12 education should be non-specialized and non-vocational. Under Adler's proposal, electives are essentially abolished and, as he says, we should "eliminate all the non-essentials from the school day." If it doesn't have to do with cultivating the intellect, we don't want it.

This would not only make school a positively dreary place for kids to be (eliminating any classes that might appeal to those not budding philosophers) but it would also lead the non-college-bound out in the cold. Alder suggests several times that all vocational training should take place post-high-school, meaning that school would no longer prepare students for a vocation at all, and those who can't afford to put off work after high school to receive additional training would be ill-prepared to start a career.

Like many schemes philosophers make about how to reform education, the Paidiea Proposal would make for some very interesting private schools. Like the Montessori method, this system might work for some or even half, but certainly not for all. Many students - those who might go into blue collar vocations - would likely do poorly in Paidiea schools. Adler might suggest that I am being pessimistic and "undemocratic," but I would charge him with utopianism and...being a theoretician rather than a statistician.

As long as differences in ability exist (and the fact is unfortunate), the Paidiea proposal, by expecting different abilities to access the same curricula, runs the risk of being as unfair as those he charges with excessive differentiation.

Literature that encourages faculty and parents to stress the academic curriculum. Mortimer Adler who hails from New York talks about the kids of today learning the basics as well as to advancing to upper level work. He believes that everyone should go to the university and not just be directed toward a fast track program. He is not saying that fast track is wrong but that options should be provided for the student. A must have book that sheds light on a subject that for the most part has been blurred. If you are tired of books that repeat things over and over but which do not provide a true answer to the educational crisis that is going in America, then get this. In the end, freedom is the key to growth for the student,but the system to some extent wants your kid McDonaldized (in terms of education).

When Mortimer Adler wrote this book, he was Chairman of the Board of Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His purpose was to encourage a transformation in public education.

As a lifelong learner and a teacher, what I found most valuable in Adler's book is his concept of the three elements of learning: (a) the acquisition of knowledge, (b) the ability to apply it, and (c) the capacity to use it to deepen understanding.

In simple, straightforward language, Alder describes (a) why we need to teach all of the students in the first twelve years of schooling to do all three (i.e., acquire, apply, and deepen), not just the first and second as is most often the case, and (b) how to do it.

This simple but profound book helped me to become a better teacher and lifelong learner. It can do the same for you.

Robert E. Levasseur, Ph.D., president of MindFire Press (www.mindfirepress.com).

I have no clue as to whether the author of this book is alive or not in 2005 but this book is from the 80's but he comments in it that all kids need to get a good education in order to make it in life. It may sound simple but he talks about kids being placed in vocational programs which he believes only limits their growth and their salaries once they grow up. The idea behind this literature is that all kids are suited for a four year curriculum, learning topics such as philosophy and biology for example and not just being thrown into vocational programs just because of the way one may look, or from the social economic circle one may hail from. Recommended literature to all parents, home school parents, private and public school educators. It is a fast read, because i checked out this book from my public library but the information is really rare to find now a days. Get it!!!

It's well-written, clear and concise - an easy read. Unfortunately, it consists largely of a proposal that would, IMO, be counterproductive in education. A quick synopsis of the chapters may be useful for potential readers: The Part and chapter titles below are direct quotes, followed by a short synopsis of the contents of those chapters (the part after the colon). My bias will probably show a bit.

PART ONE: THE SCHOOLING OF THE PEOPLE
1. Democracy and Education: Democracy can only be served if everyone has equality of outcome, regardless of ability or effort. Children must be taught to be liberals.
2. Schooling - Only a Part of Education: Our schools must not avoid their duty to supply political guidance and therapy to children, because they're too young to be educated anyway.

PART TWO: THE ESSENTIALS OF BASIC SCHOOLING
3. The Same Objectives for All: All students should be taught the same.
4. The Same Course of Study for All: All students should learn at the same pace.
5. Overcoming Initial Impediments: Homes are not all equal, so 3 years of preschool should be mandatory, and all identical - it's only fair.
6. Individual Differences: Yes, they exist, but they're not important, because they can be overcome.

PART THREE: TEACHING AND LEARNING
7. The Heart of the Matter: Children can teach themselves if properly guided.
8. The Preparation of Teachers: We can get better teachers if we pay them more money, and they should study liberal, humanistic studies while they pursue their careers, just in case they get off track.
9. The Principal: The Principal should have extensive classroom experience - mere administration isn't really the important issue.

PART FOUR: BEYOND BASIC SCHOOLING
10. Higher Learning: It's not the college's fault, they get unfit students without the above steps.
11. Earning a Living and Living Well: If everyone is well-educated, everyone does better, but only if we achieve zero unemployment - if we fail at that basic, easy step, nothing can be blamed on education.
12. The Future of Our Free Institutions: Go be politically active or it won't work.

If you can agree with the ideas and plans in this book, you may enjoy it. If you live in the real world, and are looking for a plan for educating yourself or your children, you'll probably do better elsewhere.

Great book, good condition and arrived on time for my class. Thank you for allowing me to review this purchase.