A clear philosophy of education is an important component to the career of any teacher, principal, or district administrator. A teacher’s philosophy of education affects not only the way the educator presents instructional material, but also the manner in which one communicates with students, parents, colleagues and administrators. Moreover, the educational philosophy of a building principal affects the way that administrator conducts formal observations and sets educational themes and policies for a school building. The educational philosophy of a district administrator sets the overall tone for the entire district and affects dealings with citizens and business leaders within a community (Witcher, Sewall, Arnold, & Travers, 2001).
The purpose of this paper is to outline a personal philosophy of education that is consistent with contemporary educational thought. Such a philosophy would be impossible without the influence of social theory, educational philosophy, and history. Further, the paper will describe an ideal educational system commensurate with the personal philosophy. This educational system must address issues such as multi-culturalism, curriculum, and the function of schooling in the community. The final section of the paper will discuss these issues and the approach of the hypothetically ideal school system.
Historical, Social and Philosophical Perspectives
To develop a personal philosophy of education, it is important to understand one’s perspective concerning history, society, and philosophy. Education has undergone reform and change throughout the history of the United States. For example, in the 1800s, the role of teachers in schools shifted from a predominantly male role to a primarily female responsibility (Reddick, 2004). Whether one was black or white, male or female, rich or poor has played a role in the availability of education in the history of education in America (Eisenmann, 2001; Reddick, 2004; Vejnar, 2002; Waite & Crocco, 2004). Similarly, social theory plays an important role in the understanding of the role of schooling and educators within society (Whitty, 1997). One may describe oneself as a functionalist, a Marxist, an interpretivist, or a post-modernist and such a description will affect one’s overall philosophy of education (Becker, 1988; Brehony, 2004; Cole, 2003; Dahms, 1997; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Pai & Adler, 2001; Rikowski, 1996; Whitty, 1997; Wildavsky, 1991). Finally, one’s general philosophical perspective will affect the way one understands education. The philosophies of idealism, realism, existentialism, and pragmatism have different viewpoints on education and epistemology.
Historical background
The historical basis for the personal philosophy of education relies on the role of the family as the primary educator of children. As a nation of immigrants, it has historically been the family over the state or country that has made decisions regarding the education of children. Factors, such as economic need, tradition, ethnicity, and availability have played a role in these decisions by immigrant families (Aakvik, Salvanes, & Vaage, 2005; Hargis & Horan, 2004). According to Vogt (2006) the family is the first and most basic experience of community and society for a child. In the family, the child learns what it means to be a member of the community and what expectations the child can have of the community. Further, it is through the family that a child learns one’s responsibilities and obligations to the extended community. Children who experience a family unit as their primary experience of community grow up to be adults that are more productive. Thus, the family is the child’s first experience with education (“Family pediatrics report of the task force on the family”, 2003) and the family as the primary educator of the child is the basis of the personal philosophy of education presented in this paper.
Social Theory and a Philosophy of Education
Functionalist theory. One’s understanding of society has a strong influence on a personal philosophy of education. If one understands the world from a functionalist perspective, one sees the person as a part of society with a specific relation to society as a whole. In education, this means that the purpose of education is to prepare the child to function as an adult within the political, cultural, and economic aspects of the community. The child is educated to serve a specific purpose within the society (Becker, 1988; Caruthers, Thompson, & Eubanks, 2004; Davis, 1959).
Marxist theory. If one understands the world from a Marxist, or Conflict Theory perspective, one experiences society as a struggle among social classes, and the school as a place where the struggle takes place in order to bring about change. To a Marxist, the traditional school in a capitalist society is a place where the differences among the classes is perpetuated through the faculty and curriculum of the school (Cole, 2003; Dahms, 1997; Rikowski, 1996). This inequality of social class manifests itself both formally, through the curriculum and the delivery of the curriculum by the faculty, and informally through the existence of group structures that tend to segregate the classes and enable the inequity to subsist.
Interpretivist theory.
The interpretivist social theory is characterized by the denial of objective truth in favor of the search for truth among social structures that are in constant relationship. An educator who sees the world as an interpretivist recognizes the relationships that exist among student peers, between students and teachers, among groups of teachers, between administrators and teachers, and between administrators and students. Learning becomes the search for knowledge among these groups rather than the simple transmission of information from teacher to student. According to the interpretivist theory, the family is the social structure that reinforces the inequality among the classes through the communication that takes place between elders and the young (Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Pai & Adler, 2001; Wildavsky, 1991).
Post-modernist theory. Post-modernism bases its theory on the primacy of the individual and, like interpretivism, rejects the existence of objective truth. A post-modernist educator believes that knowledge emerges through a diversity of culture and understanding rather than through the transmission of static, objective facts. The educational system for a post-modernist is a place where children experience freedom of thought and exploration. One learns through the search for answers rather than the reception of knowledge in a conventional setting. The post-modernist theory of education recognizes that there is a diversity of learning styles and developmental levels within a group of learners. Rather than discourage this diversity and teaching the class, the educator celebrates the differences among the students and helps all students to reach their potential (Allan, 2004; Coulby & Jones, 1996; Mehta & Ninnes, 2003; Pai & Adler, 2001).
Summary and implications for a personal philosophy.
To arrive at a personal philosophy of education, this researcher has chosen to extract the elements of strength among the major social theories while de-emphasizing the aspects of those theories that seem to be weak, relative to education. In other words, a goal of education should be to prepare children to be productive adults within society in conjunction with a functionalist approach; however, this preparedness should not go so far as to lead to the tracking of students onto an educational path from which one cannot stray (Becker, 1988). Further, an educational system should recognize and attempt to eliminate the achievement gap that exists among various socio-economical, ethnic, and racial groups (Bloomfield & Cooper, 2003). However, the entire focus of the school should not be to participate in a class struggle, as is the focus of Marxism. Moreover, the focus on the cooperative effort of learning, as espoused by interpretivists, is an effective method of constructing knowledge; however, a complete reliance on the interpretivist theory fails to recognize the inequity that exists among classes and ways to deal with these inequities (Pai & Adler, 2001). Finally, the post-modernist attention to the diversity and multi-culturalism within the educational setting can contribute to the cooperative effort emphasized by interpretivism. However, to deny the existence of any objective truth seems to be impractical and unnecessary.
In summary, the personal philosophy of education presented in this paper is based on a sociology that views education as a means to prepare students to be productive adults in society. However, the learner has the freedom, with the guidance of the educator, to choose the path that leads to productivity within the community. This view is of a system, which welcomes diversity and multiculturalism and encourages divergent thinking among students. The social theory of the philosophy recognizes that all children can learn regardless of socio-economic, racial, or ethnic background. Further, one learns according to this theory, by working cooperatively with educators and students to investigate and discover the truth within a framework that encourages creativity and questioning.
Philosophical Basis for the Personal Philosophy
Underlying the social theory of a personal philosophy of education is a reflective understanding of the world and one’s place in it. To have a well-founded personal philosophy, it is necessary to reflect upon one’s perceptions of how one transmits and receives knowledge. These perceptions are the foundation, upon which educators base their instructional methods, assessment techniques, and relationships with students, parents, colleagues, and administrators (Gutek, 1997). Both the traditional, systematic philosophies and the non-traditional philosophies have positive and negative implications for education. Thus, in the end, a balanced approach to philosophical thought will be suggested as the basis for a personal philosophy of education.
Idealism and Realism. Idealism and realism are traditional philosophies based on the teachings of the classic philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Both are systematic philosophies that recognize objective truth, though they approach this truth from differing perspectives. The idealist understands truth as that which unfolds before the perceiver while the realist recognizes the existence of truth even outside the context of perception. Epistemologically, the idealist understands knowledge as that which one comes to discover with the mind. Knowing is primarily a mental process of discovery. In contrast, realism understands knowledge as beginning with the senses and moves to the mind. One uses the mind to organize information from the senses into abstract concepts. For both the realist and the idealist, reality is both structured and orderly (Gutek, 1997). An educator who espouses one of these systematic philosophies values a traditional approach to the classroom. Basic skills are taught with specific instructional objectives and clear assessment of outcomes. The teacher is the transmitter of knowledge and the student is the receiver.
Pragmatism and Existentialism. Pragmatism is the educational philosophy closely associated with the work of John Dewey. This educational philosophy stresses acquisition through experience and inquiry. Unlike the traditional philosophies, pragmatists reject objective reality in favor of an epistemology based on experimentation and shared experiences. For the pragmatist, one gains knowledge through solving problems within an interdependent society of learners. The scientific method is an appropriate example of the pragmatic approach to attaining knowledge. One asks questions, makes observations, conducts experiments, and draws conclusions in order to understand a concept. In short, according to pragmatism, one learns by doing, not just by thinking (S. E. Henry, 2005; Prawat, 2000).
Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes existence over essence. In other words, that something exists is more significant than what something is. For the existentialist, all reality is subjective, rejecting the notion of objective truth. Like pragmatism, existentialism understands knowledge as that which flows from experience; however, the existentialist approach does not accept the validity of the scientific method as the way to gain knowledge. Further, existentialism rejects the pragmatist emphasis on group learning. Rather, the existentialist approach focuses on the individual and individual freedom as the path to knowledge. In other words, that which is true for one may not be true for someone else (Pine, 1974).
Summary and implications for a personal philosophy. The research thus far has described a personal philosophy of education that is based on a combination of the social theories of functionalism, Marxism, interpretivism and post-modernism. Similarly, one can develop a personal educational philosophy that includes elements from the above-described philosophies, incorporating aspects of each. This personal philosophy takes the systematic nature of the idealist and realist perspectives, the experiential, experimental and group components of the pragmatist philosophy and the respect for the individual and individual freedom from the existentialist viewpoint. In other words, the learner comes to know through the discovery of objective truth. One arrives at this discovery, beginning with the senses and moving toward abstract concepts. One discovers knowledge through one’s experience and by questioning and observing reality and conducting experiments to test theories. Finally, one makes the knowledge gained through this method one’s own through the individual learning style and understanding of the conclusions one draws from questioning, observing, and experimenting.
To summarize the research thus far, historical, sociological, and philosophical research has informed the personal educational philosophy described above. The philosophy is based on the historical perspective that the family is the basic community unit and should be the primary educator of a child. This idea is well supported by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that challenges schools to meet minimum standards of achievement or gives the choice to parents to choose an alternate public or private school for the child to attend (Bloomfield & Cooper, 2003; Cochran-Smith, 2005; Fritzberg, 2003; M. N. Henry, 2004; Mayers, 2006; Whitfield, 2005; Zirkel, 2006). Further, this philosophy combines the strengths of the major social theories in order to envision a society, in which values such as multi-culturalism and cooperative learning are the basis for the learning environment. This environment has a philosophical basis that is systematic, recognizing objective truth, and that understand the acquisition of knowledge as a process of scientific discovery, questioning, observing and experimenting.
An Educational System Based on this Philosophy
The first part of this paper has been the description and discussion of a personal educational philosophy based on a review of the relevant literature regarding the history, social theory and philosophy of education. However, a philosophy of education is only relevant if one is able to practice it in an educational setting. Though there is no specific school district or charter school that espouses the above-described philosophy, one can envision the way that a school might work if these components were the background for the establishment of a school. This section of the paper will deal with the hypothetical establishment of the ideal educational institution based on the principles discussed above.
Description of the Educational System
To describe this hypothetical school, one must first consider the various components of a school, the administration, faculty, students, and physical plant. In order for this school to function, all the components will have to be in agreement with the aspects of the educational philosophy of the school. There is a specific profile of a principal who would lead the school and the faculty, who will facilitate the learning experiences of the children. The physical plant of the school must be conducive to a learning environment that is respectful of objective truth and high academic standards, but open to questioning and discovery through observation and experimentation. While there will be no specific profile of a student, and diversity and multi-culturalism will be honored and celebrated, students must have some qualities of self-motivation and the willingness to be critical and creative thinkers.
The principal.
This school will have an administrator who is a strong educational and instructional leader. According to Hallinger (2003) a principal should exhibit leadership characteristics which foster a shared vision of among teachers and students that includes high expectations for teaching and learning. Further, the administrator is one who is able to provide for the professional development in conjunction with the vision and expectations. Finally, the principal should be a model of instructional leadership for both teacher and learner, exemplifying the values that the school represents (p. 343). In this school, the principal is one who understands that there is a diversity of teaching and learning styles and respects that diversity. The principal is not one who micromanages the activities of the teachers or insists upon a specific teaching or learning style in the classrooms. Instead, the principal will be one who observes the teaching and learning in the building and provides resources and professional suggestions to enhance the unique styles that exist among educators and learners.
The faculty and students.
There is no specific profile of a teacher in this school, other than that each faculty member will be a professional in every aspect. These professional educators will have the freedom to utilize numerous instructional methods in order to enhance the learning of each child. Flexibility will be a necessary component of the teacher’s professional life. The policy of the school will be to assign students according to the teaching strengths of each educator. In other words, if a student exhibits a learning style that responds best to a traditional mode of teaching, the child will be placed with a teacher who most appropriately matches this need. Further, few classrooms will be completely self-contained, consisting of one teacher who teaches every subject to every student. This flexibility will allow the administrator to maximize the potential of each teacher and student. The administrator will select the faculty to allow for this flexibility. It will not be unheard of, for example, for a teacher to specialize in teaching mathematics, even at an elementary level, while another educator specializes in language arts.
One specific requirement of the faculty is that they be open to questioning and discovery by the students. Teachers will not deliver knowledge to the students. Instead, they will facilitate the discovery of concepts through experimentation, observation, and questioning. The faculty will need to pay special attention to the developmental level of students and encourage them to construct knowledge in a way that makes it understandable, useful, and real for each individual. Cooperative learning will be the preferred learning activity; however given the acceptance of learning styles noted above, students who learn best completing isolated assignments will have that opportunity. The key to the function of faculty and student under this model is to eliminate standardization as much as possible. If a teacher has an idea that will enhance the learning for students, there will be freedom to explore the idea and if it works, to implement it into the regular routine of the school. The best way to sum up the policy of the school regarding students and staff is that every teacher will be responsible, at least in theory, for every student, and each student will be accountable to each teacher.
Physical Plant.
The layout and classroom structure of this school will attempt to illustrate the underlying philosophy of the administration, faculty, and students. Some classrooms will have a traditional design while others will incorporate a style that is more conducive to cooperative and hands-on activities. Open, common areas will be abundant, allowing for mixed groupings of classes and teachers. Curricular materials will be varied as well, ranging from the traditional textbook to more hands-on, experimental materials that allow for the variety of learning styles to be accommodated by the school. A marked difference that one might notice upon examination of the physical plant of this school will be the absence of the traditional fluorescent lighting that is common in schools. Mosher (2005) asserts that they type of lighting in schools can affect student performance and that natural lighting is preferred over fluorescent. Another reason for the use of natural lighting in the building is to emphasize the primacy of the family in the school. Students will attend a school that more resembles their experience at home. Thus, lighting, furnishings, and indoor plants will be incorporated to give the feel of school as a home away from home.
Other considerations.
Though flexibility and diversity will be prevalent in the school, there will be no lack of attention paid to curriculum and standards. High academic standards that meet or exceed the state and federal standards will be the rule. Further, while there will be the expectation that students will experiment and question, mastery of basic skills will be expected at all levels. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 demands that academic content standards be challenging and this school will comply with, or exceed the expectations of the law (“No child left behind act of 2001”, 2001). Moreover, the administration and faculty will expect parents to be an integral part of the running of the school. It will be insufficient for a parent simply to comply with homework requirements and make sure that a child attends on a daily basis. Instead, assignments will be designed in order to show evidence of parental participation. Parents will be welcome in the classrooms as volunteers to help students to learn and teachers to teach. Finally, there will be the expectation of professional respect among educator colleagues, between administration and faculty, between students and teachers and between parents and teachers. All faculty and staff will be committed to the ideal that all children can learn, and that differences in culture, race, socio-economics or any other factors will not serve as excuses for failure. These differences will function as enhancements to the overall school program, providing opportunities for students, parents and faculty to develop together in a spirit of life-long learning.
Conclusion
The research has shown that a personal educational philosophy that is flexible and open to pluralism and multi-culturalism is optimal the growth and development of both educator and student within a school setting. This paper has described a personal philosophy that incorporates aspects of the major social theories of functionalism, Marxism, interpretivism and post-modernism with an underlying philosophy that is just as diverse, including elements of realism, idealism, pragmatism, and existentialism. Further, this philosophy is based on the historical foundation of the primacy of the family as the basic unit of community. Though the educational system outlined by this paper exists in idea only, one should be able to envision the development of a program that includes high academic standards along with the flexibility needed to serve a student population that is diverse in thinking and learning skills, culture, race, and socio-economics. Such a system would adhere to the principals of NCLB, yet depart from the standardization and rigidity that encompasses the majority of educational institutions. This educational model is an attempt to ensure that no teacher, administrator, or child be left behind.
References
Aakvik, A., Salvanes, K. G., & Vaage, K. (2005). Educational attainment and family background. German Economic Review, 6(3), 377-394. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Business Source Complete Database.
Allan, J. (2004). Deterritorializations: Putting postmodernism to work on teacher education and inclusion. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 36(4), 417-432. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Becker, U. (1988). From social scientific functionalism to open functional logic. Theory & Society, 17(6), 865-883. Retrieved July 2, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.
Bloomfield, D. C., & Cooper, B. S. (2003). Nclb: A new role for the federal government: An overview of the most sweeping federal education law since 1965.(no child left behind act). T H E Journal (Technological Horizons In Education)(30), 6-9. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Brehony, K. J. (2004). Education as a ‘social function’: Sociology, and social theory in the histories of brian simon. History of Education, 33(5), 545-558. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Caruthers, L., Thompson, S., & Eubanks, E. (2004). Using storytelling to discuss the “Undiscussables” In urban schools. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(3), 36-41. Retrieved July 1, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). No child left behind: 3 years and counting. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 99-103. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from InfoTrac OneFile via Thompson Gale.
Cole, M. (2003). Might it be in the practice that it fails to succeed? A marxist critique of claims for postmodernism and poststructuralism as forces for social change and social justice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(4), 487-500. Retrieved July 1, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.
Coulby, D., & Jones, C. (1996). Post-modernity, education and european identities. Comparative Education, 32(2), 171-184. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Dahms, H. F. (1997). Theory in weberian marxism: Patterns of critical social theory in lukács and habermas. Sociological Theory, 15(3), 181-214. Retrieved July 2, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.
Davis, K. (1959). The myth of functional analysis as a special method in sociology and anthropology. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 757-772. Retrieved July 2, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.
Eisenmann, L. (2001). Creating a framework for interpreting us women’s educational history: Lessons from historical lexicography. History of Education, 30(5), 453-470. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Family pediatrics report of the task force on the family. (2003). Pediatrics, 111(6), 1541-1571. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Fritzberg, G. J. (2003). No child left behind: Changes and challenges. Journal of Education, 184(3), 37-43. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Gutek, G. L. (1997). Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352. Retrieved May 21, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.
Hargis, P. G., & Horan, P. M. (2004). Bounded by culture or culture bound? Ethnicity, schooling, and the interplay of theory and evidence. Historical Methods, 37(1), 23-33. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from InfoTrac OneFile via Thompson Gale.
Henry, M. N. (2004). No child left behind? Educational malpractice litigation for the 21st century. California Law Review, 92(4), 1118-1171. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from Business Source Complete Database.
Henry, S. E. (2005). A different approach to teaching multiculturalism: Pragmatism as a pedagogy and problem-solving tool. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1060-1078. Retrieved July 14, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Mayers, C. M. (2006). Public law 107-110 no child left behind act of 2001: Support or threat to education as a fundamental right? Education, 126(3), 449-461. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Mehta, S., & Ninnes, P. (2003). Postmodernism debates and comparative education: A critical discourse analysis. Comparitive Education Review, 47(2), 238-255. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Mosher, D. (2005). Game plan. Contract, 1. Retrieved July 23, 2006 from Business Source Complete Database.
Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145-167. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from Business Source Complete database.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2001). No child left behind act of 2001, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html?exp=0.
Pai, Y., & Adler, S. A. (2001). Cultural foundations of education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pine, G. J. (1974). Existentialism teaching and learning. Education, 95(1), 18-24. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Prawat, R. S. (2000). The two faces of deweyan pragmatism: Inductionism versus social constructivism. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 805. Retrieved July 14, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.
Reddick, R. N. (2004). History, myth, and the politics of educational reform. Educational Theory, 54(1), 73-87. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Rikowski, G. (1996). Left alone: End time for marxist educational theory? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(4), 415-451. Retrieved July 1, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.
Vejnar, R. J., III. (2002). The state of education in colonial virginia. International Social Science Review, 16-31. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from InfoTrac OneFile via Thompson Gale.
Vogt, C. P. (2006). The family as cornerstone of the good life and the good society: Family life in the compendium of the social doctrine of the church. Review of Business, 27(2), 13-19. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Business Source Complete Database.
Waite, C. L., & Crocco, M. S. (2004). Fighting injustice through education. History of Education, 33(5), 573-583. Retrieved July 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Whitfield, P. (2005). No child left behind. Journal of Children & Poverty, 11(1), 43-54. Retrieved July 14, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Whitty, G. (1997). Social theory and education policy: The legacy of karl mannheim. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(2), 149-163. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Wildavsky, A. (1991). Has modernity killed objectivity? Society, 29(1), 33-36. Retrieved July 1, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.
Witcher, A. E., Sewall, A. M., Arnold, L. D., & Travers, P. D. (2001). Teaching, leading, learning: It’s all about philosophy. Clearing House, 74(5), 277-279. Retrieved July 21, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Zirkel, P. A. (2006). What does the law say? Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 67-68. Retrieved July 9, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.
