Paideia Proposal [Paperback]

Mortimer J. Adler (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0684841886 | ISBN-13: 978-0684841885 | Publication Date: October 1, 1998

No Description Available

--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Mortimer J. Adler is Chairman of the Board of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Director of the Institute for Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute.  He has authored fifty books.  He lives in Chicago.

Product Details

• Paperback: 96 pages
• Publisher: Touchstone (October 1, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684841886
• ISBN-13: 978-0684841885
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #557,408 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Mortimer Jerome Adler (December 28, 1902 - June 28, 2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author. As a philosopher he worked within the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions. He lived for the longest stretches in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Adler's own Institute for Philosophical Research. Adler was married twice and had four children.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

81 of 84 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A balanced and ideal structure for learning, August 12, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Paideia Program (Paperback)

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.

44 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Radical teaching methods, October 21, 2003

By 

Avid Reader (Franklin, Tn) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto (Paperback)

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.

34 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Very Good Ideas...In Theory (A Teacher's Review), March 8, 2009

By 

Kevin Currie-Knight "Education Grad Student" (Newark, Delaware) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Paideia Proposal (Kindle Edition)

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.