I have not read Rousseau since college, so I cannot comment directly on his book. Your points are well made and I will offer a few general comments based on experience. Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf education said that all education is self-education. Through decades as an educator, I have discovered that it's important to avoid dogmatism or certainty either the kind described in Emile or the kind seen in SDE or progressive schools. The child will always show us what they need and the adults would be wise to listen.
I am retired after teaching for over forty years (homeschool, and high school through PhD seminars). I also taught in the MA in Teaching program at the Templeton Honors College; in "The Culture of the Classroom"--widely considered the program's "foundational" course--we discussed essays from Sudbury Valley School, portions of "Free to Learn" (a book for which I am v. thankful--Thank You!), as well as Holt, Jensen, Palmer, et al.
In a course on the history of the American public system, we read your "Brief History of Education", as well as some of John Dewey's writings. Students, nearly all of whom taught in "classical" schools, were astounded to recognize how fully they agreed with Dewey, even finding him inspiring--they had been told that he was "anti-classical", virtually Rousseau redivivus. *Not one* of them had read him before this course. As you say, "[s]cholars often pay homage to past famous works without reading those works"; in this case, it was not homage, but its opposite.
This statement needs to be inscribed in gold over the entrance to every school:
"Rousseau's fundamental error, and that of essentially all modern educators, is the belief that the secret to education lies in the capacities of the teacher. It does not; it lies in the capacities of the children. Children educate themselves."
I appreciate the emphasis on actually reading the source material to get a better understanding of what these thinkers are actually advocating.
A few thoughts/questions:
1) RE: #4 - controllability fallacy
It seems like "have access to the culturally valued tools" and "experience directly enough of the culture" are quite subjective. One can argue this is at the discretion of the educator/facilitator, which means the type of experience is subject to their judgement. How does one know when they're pushing too much of their own value judgement on what is/isn't culturally relevant?
2) As a more practical example, the SDE program that I run focuses on older teens/young adults who are interested in tech. Social media like Instagram and TikTok are obviously culturally relevant tools and are the places where students get most of their information. But I feel the obligation to introduce counter-sources, even something like talking to real people in-person, which could be interpreted as injecting my own views on what's right. If I don't, I feel like I'm letting the platform algorithm dictate what's culturally relevant. What happens when exposure to one culturally relevant thing prevents exposure to another relevant thing in a zero-sum attention economy?
Thank you for this insightful article that critiques and raises questions on Rousseau's theory of education. I have not read any of his works but I resonate with the fact that children are natural learners and with the right setting, environment and motivation, are able to explore their questions and discover their interests as you describe in Free to Learn. I have observed children for over a decade and have a son of my own and I have witnessed an innate, intrinsic talent or disposition that children show to learn and explore from their own curiosity and social environments. They learn a great deal from one another, children meet each other's needs better than any adult can. With that much control, I'd say Emile was rather trained with the backdrop of a natural environment to become a certain kind of person but not his true self. I sometimes feel this way about the montessori system as well. I believe children need a variety of environments to learn from and explore in more ways than one sans the moral judgement and validation of the adults present.
It seems we can't let go of Fallacy 2. I've just finished a book on building resilience in children based on Piaget's development model which was published this year. I'm glad my immediate reservations have been reinforced by your comments. Maybe we prefer to believe that young children can't think for themselves and, therefore, can't educate themselves which leaves the adults comfortably in charge.
I read those early theorists in my Playcentre training in N.Z. I re-trained as a Montessori teacher. I was head teacher of the outdoor program. I am a supporter of the child having freedom to learn, in an environment of their choosing and in a social setting. The way each child uniquely learns is a joy that constantly unfolds.
Peter - Thanks again for a thought provoking email. I have to say I’m a little confused: You say, “Rousseau's vision is one in which every decision of the child, and every lesson learned, is cleverly controlled by the brilliant master…” but you also characterize it as an, “…exaggeration of some of the views of progressive education.”
I must admit I’ve never met a progressive educator who would go so far as to be that controlling! But perhaps I’m more in your “self-directed” camp than I thought, so thank you for pointing out the important distinctions!
Perhaps this explains my growing distaste for “standards” and “grades”…
It's been many years (at least 50) since I read Emile in translation. I had forgotten just how unrealistic, totalitarian, unscalable & inconsistent with evolutionary psychology it is. Thanks for the update!
I have not read Rousseau since college, so I cannot comment directly on his book. Your points are well made and I will offer a few general comments based on experience. Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf education said that all education is self-education. Through decades as an educator, I have discovered that it's important to avoid dogmatism or certainty either the kind described in Emile or the kind seen in SDE or progressive schools. The child will always show us what they need and the adults would be wise to listen.
Dear Peter,
I am retired after teaching for over forty years (homeschool, and high school through PhD seminars). I also taught in the MA in Teaching program at the Templeton Honors College; in "The Culture of the Classroom"--widely considered the program's "foundational" course--we discussed essays from Sudbury Valley School, portions of "Free to Learn" (a book for which I am v. thankful--Thank You!), as well as Holt, Jensen, Palmer, et al.
In a course on the history of the American public system, we read your "Brief History of Education", as well as some of John Dewey's writings. Students, nearly all of whom taught in "classical" schools, were astounded to recognize how fully they agreed with Dewey, even finding him inspiring--they had been told that he was "anti-classical", virtually Rousseau redivivus. *Not one* of them had read him before this course. As you say, "[s]cholars often pay homage to past famous works without reading those works"; in this case, it was not homage, but its opposite.
This statement needs to be inscribed in gold over the entrance to every school:
"Rousseau's fundamental error, and that of essentially all modern educators, is the belief that the secret to education lies in the capacities of the teacher. It does not; it lies in the capacities of the children. Children educate themselves."
Thank you (again) for your ministry.
Pax.
fred
It appears that Progressive Education is just tyranny by another name.
I appreciate the emphasis on actually reading the source material to get a better understanding of what these thinkers are actually advocating.
A few thoughts/questions:
1) RE: #4 - controllability fallacy
It seems like "have access to the culturally valued tools" and "experience directly enough of the culture" are quite subjective. One can argue this is at the discretion of the educator/facilitator, which means the type of experience is subject to their judgement. How does one know when they're pushing too much of their own value judgement on what is/isn't culturally relevant?
2) As a more practical example, the SDE program that I run focuses on older teens/young adults who are interested in tech. Social media like Instagram and TikTok are obviously culturally relevant tools and are the places where students get most of their information. But I feel the obligation to introduce counter-sources, even something like talking to real people in-person, which could be interpreted as injecting my own views on what's right. If I don't, I feel like I'm letting the platform algorithm dictate what's culturally relevant. What happens when exposure to one culturally relevant thing prevents exposure to another relevant thing in a zero-sum attention economy?
Dear Dr. Gray,
Thank you for this insightful article that critiques and raises questions on Rousseau's theory of education. I have not read any of his works but I resonate with the fact that children are natural learners and with the right setting, environment and motivation, are able to explore their questions and discover their interests as you describe in Free to Learn. I have observed children for over a decade and have a son of my own and I have witnessed an innate, intrinsic talent or disposition that children show to learn and explore from their own curiosity and social environments. They learn a great deal from one another, children meet each other's needs better than any adult can. With that much control, I'd say Emile was rather trained with the backdrop of a natural environment to become a certain kind of person but not his true self. I sometimes feel this way about the montessori system as well. I believe children need a variety of environments to learn from and explore in more ways than one sans the moral judgement and validation of the adults present.
It seems we can't let go of Fallacy 2. I've just finished a book on building resilience in children based on Piaget's development model which was published this year. I'm glad my immediate reservations have been reinforced by your comments. Maybe we prefer to believe that young children can't think for themselves and, therefore, can't educate themselves which leaves the adults comfortably in charge.
Dear Peter.
I read those early theorists in my Playcentre training in N.Z. I re-trained as a Montessori teacher. I was head teacher of the outdoor program. I am a supporter of the child having freedom to learn, in an environment of their choosing and in a social setting. The way each child uniquely learns is a joy that constantly unfolds.
Peter - Thanks again for a thought provoking email. I have to say I’m a little confused: You say, “Rousseau's vision is one in which every decision of the child, and every lesson learned, is cleverly controlled by the brilliant master…” but you also characterize it as an, “…exaggeration of some of the views of progressive education.”
I must admit I’ve never met a progressive educator who would go so far as to be that controlling! But perhaps I’m more in your “self-directed” camp than I thought, so thank you for pointing out the important distinctions!
Perhaps this explains my growing distaste for “standards” and “grades”…
:)
It's been many years (at least 50) since I read Emile in translation. I had forgotten just how unrealistic, totalitarian, unscalable & inconsistent with evolutionary psychology it is. Thanks for the update!