|
Kirkpatrick, Jerry (2008). Montessori, Dewey, and
Capitalism: Educational Theory for a Free Market in
Education. Claremont, CA: TLJ Books
Pp. 212 ISBN 978-0-9787803-3-3 |
Reviewed by James Jackson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
October 15, 2008
In his book Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism: Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education, Jerry Kirkpatrick develops his theoretical philosophy for an educational system that is based on the free-market economic model. At the center of Kirkpatrick’s educational philosophy is the belief that the individual student should function in an educational system that respects its goals and supports its autonomy. Kirkpatrick critiques, analyzes, and supports the work of John Dewey and Maria Montessori by drawing on the philosophy and theory developed by free-market economic philosophers such as Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises.
Throughout the pages of Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism, Kirkpatrick presents his arguments in a manner that is addressed to both the general and the academic audience. By combining theory from the fields of education, economics, psychology, and philosophy, Kirkpatrick argues for an education system that is radically different from the present day system of educating children. Through the use of historical issues, stories, commentary, and explanations of educational theory and teaching methodologies, the author critiques present day teaching methods, and lays the groundwork for a radical change in the way children should be educated.
Kirkpatrick begins his discussion in the first chapter, “Capitalism and Education,” with a quotation by 18th century economist Adam Smith, in which Smith bemoans the state of higher education and the practices of the professorate at the time, which to him, appeared to be driven not by the need to benefit the students, but rather by the desires of the professorate to maintain order and discipline. While it may seem strange to begin a discussion of educational theory with a quotation from an economist, the thoughts of Adam Smith are the starting point for Kirkpatrick’s broader discussion of educational theory. The author does not spend a great deal of time on contemporary educational theory and practice, but rather more time on the history of education as seen through the great minds of Plato, the Jesuits, Montessori, and Dewey.
The centerpiece of Kirkpatrick’s educational theory is what he calls the “theory of concentrated attention” (pp. 111-112), which supports the work of Maria Montessori. This theory of relies on the ability of the teacher to allow the child to pursue the learning activities that most interest him or her. The author argues that by using this approach, the child will develop a long-term interest in the subject matter (or learning in general), learn tasks better, and develop independence and autonomy that will last throughout the student’s education and continue into adulthood. At the core of Kirkpatrick’s argument is that the student’s interests, or rational self-interest, should be the driver of what is being taught in school. By relying on the rational self-interest of the student, the school will only engage in activities that the student is motivated to pay attention to, which will lead to improved academic performance.
While Kirkpatrick posits that concentrated attention—as part of a free market structure operating in a free society—is the best educational method, he does acknowledge that the practices of Maria Montessori and John Dewey were not without merit. On the one hand, Montessori’s political socialism would appear to be at odds with Kirkpatrick’s views, however, her methods of instruction and education were aimed at developing rational, independent-minded students through the use of social interaction skills, which is consistent with the author’s chosen methods. On the other hand, some of Dewey’s methods, including the concept of undivided interest, quite obviously fit with Kirkpatrick’s attraction to the notion of developing independent-minded students into autonomous citizens through the use of education.
Kirkpatrick’s discussion in not limited to the fields of history and educational methods, but also draws on the philosophy of Ayn Rand and her theory of concepts (or concept-formation). According to Rand, the conscious mind and the sub-conscious mind each perform different tasks as it relates to classifying data. The conscious mind differentiates data, while the subconscious mind integrates and connects data. Rand’s theory is of significance to Kirkpatrick’s theory of concentrated attention, because according to the author, teaching methods should concentrate on the differentiation of data as the primary goal and then the integration and connection of data as the secondary goal.
In chapter four, “The Theory”, Kirkpatrick explains his preferred teaching methods, learning environment, and educational best practices. The foundation of the author’s theory on educational best practices is built on three core concepts: “interest, attention, and independence” (p.111). The core concepts that underlie Kirkpatrick’s theory reflect the author’s belief that these three core concepts will build on each other to form a framework that will help to develop individuals—both youth and adults—who are independent, autonomous, and driven. This outcome will be the likely result of the students having been instructed in an environment that encourages intense interest in a given subject matter. The intense interest should lead to instruction in concentrated attention learning techniques, which in turn should foster independent thinking that is driven by students’ goal-oriented mindset (p. 113).
Further, Kirkpatrick asserts that implementation of his educational theory would lead to lifelong benefits to the students as they reach adulthood. The main benefit of implementing the author’s theory appears to be that if the students are allowed to develop in an educational environment that fosters interest and independence, then they will develop a system of values that will help them reach important life goals as adults.
While Kirkpatrick spends much attention on critiquing in-class instruction and curriculum methods, the author is also highly critical of the overall structure of the present day education system. In “Bureaucracy and Education”, the author’s main objection to the current system is that in a free society, or in order for a free society to develop and thrive, it is illogical to have a system of education that functions as a bureaucratic colossus that prioritizes and rewards the wrong behaviors. According to the author’s research, a public educational system that continues to function in the same manner as present system does in the United States, will only lead to students who will only develop skills sufficient to produce followers who will submit to authority rather than develop autonomous thinking skills that lead to positions of leadership. .
The main benefit of Kirkpatrick’s "theory of concentrated attention" is at odds with the current educational paradigm that, according to the author, discourages independent thinking by limiting instructional methods to those that rely too heavily on external motivations, and not on the self-generated motivations of the students. External motivations may provide for a more disciplined learning environment, however they fail to provide an atmosphere that encourages interest in the subject matter at hand and therefore restricts that optimum level of learning by the students. The author asserts that in order to achieve the optimal level of learning, students must be taught to conceptualize ideas and principles, and not just memorize information. Unfortunately, in the current educational paradigm, rote memorization, standardized testing, and uniform levels of achievement are the norm, while the development of critical thinking, conceptualization, and independent thought, are the exception.
Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism is a difficult book to recommend. The difficulty lies in trying to determine the desired audience for the book. At times, the book reads like an academic paper, but at other times, it reads like a political science argument. Furthermore, many of the supporting theories presented in the text are not explained to the degree necessary to support the argument, and are instead stated as seeming absolute fact, rather than as a particular school of thought from the fields of economics, philosophy, and/or education. For example, without prior knowledge of the underlying free-market theory and objectivist philosophy that provides the foundation of the author’s “theory of concentrated attention” approach to education, Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism may prove to be a difficult read and would require further research.
The difficulty of both writing and understanding the arguments presented in Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism most likely lies in the fact that the author, and other researchers with similar beliefs, attempt to mix several fields of study that do not necessarily belong in the same argument. While it is commendable that some researchers attempt a multidisciplinary approach to their scholarship as they seek to address the problems of the present educational system, the arguments often fall short of optimal due to incomplete reasoning and argument development.
For example, the free-market system and objectivist philosophy are based on the concept of rational self-interest providing the motivation of the individual within the free-market system. One of the assumptions of rational self-interest model is that all individuals in the free-market system have complete knowledge of all available information. Therefore their individual choices are considered rational if the choices are based on maximizing the return gained from and minimizing the potential risks of the chosen endeavor. Given this framework, several theoretical and or practical questions would likely arise.
First, how is it possible for a student to make optimal decisions in the pursuit of rational self-interest within the educational system without prior knowledge of all available information? Second, if this framework were possible, then would it be feasible and efficient to operate an equitable national educational system that is based on a student-centered, rational self-interest learning style without any bureaucratic structure? Third, if free-market systems are designed to allocate scarce resources as determined by a market-clearing price, then how can the goals of the nation be achieved if the scarce resource of education is not allocated to those who cannot pay the market-clearing price? Finally, how can the rational self-interest goals of the individual on the micro level be reconciled with the macro level goals of the nation state?
Furthermore, given the current political environment, structure, and size of the United States and its educational system, the author should discuss whether or not the solutions to the current problems presented in the book are in fact feasible. If the arguments presented in Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism are designed to be practical in nature, then the author should specifically address how the proposed solutions could be implemented given the present day political drive for accountability standards at the primary, secondary, and higher education levels in the United States.
On the other hand, if the proposed solutions are theoretical in nature, then the author needs to more fully develop his arguments by explaining the free-market theory and objectivist philosophy that supports his own theories. On first read, it does not appear that the author fully embraces either a practical or theoretical approach to his presentation, and therefore the book seems as if it would be a difficult read for the general audience, and yet insufficiently rigorous for the academic audience.
Finally, Kirkpatrick’s general assertion that the current educational system needs to be improved is consistent with much of the present academic literature, however the author’s solutions to the current problems are inconsistent with much of the present educational theory and practice. Given this conflict, in order for Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism to be presented as a convincing argument, the book needed to be practically feasible, and theoretically rigorous. Since the arguments, discussion, and theory presented in the book fall somewhere in between—but never fully embrace either—these two approaches, Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism falls short of the requirements for a "concentrated attention" approach to education.
About the Reviewer
James Jackson, PhD. is a Lecturer in Education Finance at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment