Life In Scottsdale

In looking at philosophies of curriculum from two different traditions, Perennialism from the Conservative tradition and Experimentalism from the Progressive tradition, there are far more differences than similarities.  In fact, once we get past the idea that both must be responsive to the learner, society and subject matter, the screen through which these two filtered curriculum and how it determines the teacher’s role and classroom objectives seems to have produced philosophies with little in common.  Where they appear to share some similarities is in their mutual intents to educate students to become citizens of a democratic society.  While perennialists look toward encouraging students to become careful, critical thinkers, experimentalists’ goals are to instill skills and attitudes that promote reflective thinking.  Since critical thinking involves reflective thinking and reflective thinking by nature is critical, it appears that their goals here are common ones.

     The two take a very different view of subject matter.  For a perennialist, curriculum is subject centered with teachers acting as guides that stimulate and assist, but the subject matter is considered the true teacher.  The subject matter reflects a belief in the knowledge and wisdom of western humanity and promotes unchanging universal truths.  For perennialists, diversity is of no importance, because learning is about training the mind, the will and the character through permanent study.  Therefore they see vocational education and performing arts as unessential, referring to them as anti-intellectual frivolities.  The perennialist philosophy seems to assume that all of our students will be on college track and should therefore be educated accordingly.  I feel that this mindset is counterproductive if the goal of our society is to educate all citizens.  We must offer the type of education that will best serve the whole society.  Many high school students would not stay in school if it were not for the classes that they feel teach them the things that they will use in the real world, for many those are the vocational classes that perennialists view as frivolities.  If we do not do all that we can to keep our students from dropping out of high school, how can we claim that our curriculum is addressing the needs of our society?

     The word that I found most significant in the experimentalist view of subject matter that shows it to be at odds with the perennialist was responsive.  The idea that the subject matter would actually take the students’ personal and socio-civic experience into consideration demonstrates the belief that the whole child must be educated, not just the mind.  Experimentalists, who also hold all truths up to ongoing inspection, embrace diversity.  I come away with the impression that the perennialist philosophy views the acquisition of knowledge important because knowledge itself is important, while the experimentalist philosophy sees knowledge as significant for its contribution that it makes to students’ behavior.

     As a high school math teacher, I am sure that I am at odds with most of my colleges when it comes to the philosophy that I align with.  Most project an alliance to Perennialism, where I find myself more in tuned to experimentalism.  The emphasis on subject centered curriculum that embraces universal, unchanging truths lends itself to a mathematical mindset.  Of course, I still find myself fighting my own default pedagogy that would match the beliefs of Perennialism but, just because that was the way I was taught, doesn’t mean that it would best serve my students.

     My first couple of years of teaching, all my focus was on the subject matter.  Having all the state mandated standards that needed to be covered along with district established pacing guides kept my thoughts on a subject matter driven curriculum, perennialism.  As I interacted with my students and got a clearer picture of how I needed to react to their needs, my thoughts moved to a progressive philosophy, experimentalism.  The idea of educating the whole child overrides the need to address each and every standard.  I make sure that my lesson plans can cover all key standards, but I have found that my students benefit greatly if I am more receptive to what Eisner referred to as expressive outcomes.  My class load consists of mostly at risk students and second language learners.  The need for the curriculum to be responsive is, I feel, vital.    As a teacher, I often find myself the student, as my kids time and again open my eyes to the fact that the universal, unchanging truths from my educational background are not always that universal or unchanging.