Contributed Commentary on
Volume 4 Number 8: Stone Developmentalism: An Obscure but
Pervasive Restriction on Educational Improvement
2 May 1996
John Stone
STONEJ@EDUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU
Sherman Dorn writes:
I would also bet that many people
who use developmentalism as an *excuse* not to change teaching methods are
doing so, at least in part, for other reasons. Intense instruction, even to
small groups of students, is even more exhausting than poor teaching.
I agree with you entirely. Although I have not carefully examined
this hypothesis, I suspect developmentalism may be appealing for
economic reasons. So long as teaching is a matter of fitting
instruction to highly individualized developmental patterns and the
danger of inappropriate intervention is great, teaching is bound to
require lots of teachers and take lots of time. Also if intangible
developmental limitations bar progress, teacher accountability
measures must be questioned.
As to your point about the work involved in intensive instruction and
for that matter, the work in learning research based modes of
instruction, there is no question that resistance on such grounds
does exist. However, I must hasten to say that there is very little
to encourage teachers to work hard and to insure learning because
achievement outcomes are typically given so little attention.
As to published reports of intervention oriented programs discarded or
rejected on account of differences with what seems to be developmentalist
thinking, I can refer you to the following off the top of my head:
Thanks for posting these.
I will see if I can locate more. I'm confident they exist.
On the influence of Dewey:
As to Cremin's account of progressive education, it is reasonable to contend
that the Progressive Education Association did lose connection with Dewey's
philosophy... That the Association changed is one thing, that "progressive
education" changed is another.
The criticism of progressive education after WWII was focused on the PEA and
the Life Adjustment Movement -- most incisively (as in Arthur Bestor) the
curriculum of high schools. I've read Bestor, and I don't recall where
developmental psychology was an issue, either explicitly or implicitly.
I agree with your understanding of Bestor's critique and you are
right that the life adjustment movement was not explicitly premised
on developmental psychology. In my view, however, that which
Bestor found objectionable was consistent
with the developmentalist thinking that had been inherent in the
progressive education movement since its earliest days. Marietta
Johnson, for example, had been greatly influenced by developmental
ideas in her formulation of the Organic School and much of her
thinking entered into the early expression of principles by the PEA.
A key idea was that education cannot stress only the intellectual
aspects of growing and developing without doing violence to the
other areas. The idea of educating the "whole child" was, thus, a
centerpiece of progressive thinking throughout the twenties and
thirties and much of the life adjustment concept seems entirely
consistent. For example, the 1948 Commission for Life Adjustment
Education for Youth described life adjustment education (in part):
"It is concerned with ethical and moral living and with physical,
mental, and emotional health." Bestor's criticism of this kind of
thinking (in a 1953 New Republic article) was that schools have a far
narrower and more intellectual mission and that church, home, and
other institutions and agencies should minister to the other needs of
youth. "The idea that the school must undertake to meet every need
that some other agency is failing to meet is a preposterous delusion
that can wreck the educational system without contributing anything
to the salvation of society."
More relevant to the matter of doctrine and the ideas imported to the
schools are the progressive and neo progressive nature of therecommendations about sound teaching practice issued by the National
Education Association and the U. S. Office of Education (also
by the U. S.
Bureau of Education).
I would take this with a grain of salt, sort of like the mothering
recommendations put out by the Child Bureau (or, later, Spock). Some
portion of the population saw them as bibles, but they're not evidence of
actual childrearing practice or even widespread philosophies.
I agree that the fact of such recommendations are not the same thing
as observed practices and as I mentioned in my reply to Rick (and
some others, off-list), my thesis is not that developmentalist
practices such as progressive education have thoroughly captivated
the schools. Rather my thesis is that the developmentalist premises
have served to encourage the adoption of a variety of practices that
are consistent with such thinking and, moreover, that they have
discouraged the adoption of practices that seem to have high promise
of effectiveness.
Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary.