Anything that has the tone of moral compulsion is against the principles of progressive education, which uniqueness “rests firmly on the refusal to impose a particular set of values not only the ones contained in the curriculum” (Gribble 1985). The philosophy of progressive schools has no room for any dictated creed. Children in progressive schools are allowed to make a choice and to express their opinions freely. The extent to which this is practiced depends on each school because children are helped to see learning as something they should enjoy.
“Progressive schools discourage competitiveness” (Gribble 1985). Since children make their own choices and work at their own pace and not according to the dictate of anyone, it means that the individual pupil does not need to compete with anyone. This helps to relax the learning environment making it conducive for learning. A child neither measures his/her own achievement with any other child’s nor does the OFSTED that would normally pressurise a state or public school present. There is usually no necessity for progressive school authorities to put pressure on the teachers who in turn pass the pressure on to the children through series of tests/assessments in order to be on top of the performance league table. There is usually no punishment in progressive schools and no inclination to any religious dogma or denomination.
However, no matter how ideally progressive education is portrayed as panacea for traditional or conventional form of education as obtains in public, independent and state schools, it is obvious that some of them are not truly and completely progressive. There have been changes in the application of the original philosophy as propounded by pioneers of progressive educational methods some of whose contributions are mentioned and discussed next.
Progressive thinkers
There are some famous thinkers on childhood whose work are so vital in the history of child-centred education. Some of these writers in the early years did not categorically call their work progressive education, but what they did was catalytic to the formulation of body of knowledge that is called progressive education today to which a lot of acknowledgement is owed. This essay will briefly talk about their ideas, principles and ethos.
One of these early writers was Jean Jacques Rousseau whose writings and progressive tilt brought about a fundamental change in the education of children. According to Darling J. ( ) in Rousseau’s book Emile (1762), it is stressed that man should not disturb child growth but leave it the way nature has provided for it. Child-centred education came as an alternative due to dissatisfaction about the traditional education of that time. This rejection helped to fashion out current progressive education thought. In Emile, Rousseau asserts that the progressive idea took its root against the background of obligation and child depravity attached to children in those days where strict discipline and moral training for children was the norm. Rousseau rejected this idea and believed that children are good; that the evil seen in children is from a corrupt society. His ideas were that children should not be trained in such a way as to repress their natural tendency. When juxtaposed to modern progressive education concepts it translates to not imposing any particular learning style on children but rather allowing them to discover things by themselves “Young children’s educational programmes should in Rousseau’s view be confined to those things in which they have natural interest” (Darling1994: 8 ).
Rousseau promoted the fact that children learned from direct experience and opined that feeling is always learning, which can be understood to mean- learning from environment and not from a book. Rosseau is of the opinion that children should not be taught how to read until they are ready. He imagined that they would understand by learning from the environment and from feeling things around them. In addition to that he was of the belief that there has to be little information from a book. This is echoed by Calydon [ed] (1969:50) when it is said that “Experience goes before instruction”. However Rousseau did not clarify when learning from a book should set in but children should also seek information from books. This opinion is true because looking at teachers for instance, they had to learn from books and not only depend on experience. In modern progressive education students learn largely from experience as well as from books.
Rousseau also advocated cordial relationship between a child and the teacher and that the child should learn from their actions. As discussed earlier progressive education does not see the teacher in authority like the teacher is seen in public schools; progressive education is therefore more of a child- centred approach to teaching.
According to Darling ( ) Rosseau divided childhood into stages of human growth and development. He contended that different stages of growth require specific techniques. Therefore in progressive education pupils are given individual attention because each child has their own needs and peculiarities depending on their stages.
Friedrich Froebel who established the first kindergarten at Keilhau, Germany in 1837 contributed immensely to the progressive idea of education. He believed that everyone has a spiritual value. Like Rosseau, he believed that every child had within themselves what they were to be at birth. He also believed that the appropriate educational environment would encourage the child to achieve optimum development.
Froebel saw play as important to childhood education. “In Froebel’s own eyes children’s play was far from just being an agreeable diversion: it is an activity of great symbolic significance” (Darling 1994:22). Play to Froebel was a way that children learned adult roles; furthermore, he believed that the inner nature of children was being exposed through play. In early years of education, the effects of Froebel’s contribution are seen in children’s pedagogy.
The decoration and presentation of the class, the paintings on the wall, the toys and the play involved are partly due to the works that Froebel and the others started long ago. The type of materials used might have changed considerably but the crucial function of play remains. In state schools, early year education can be traced back to Froebel’s idea of play. He introduced the use toys of bricks and wood called gift and occupation. A gift is an object with which children were able to comprehend the concept of shapes and sizes, while occupation is an item such as clay which children used in projecting the images within them.
Plowden’s Report of 1967 had an intense effect on the way pupils, parents and teachers think and view early childhood and primary education. The central idea of Plowden is child-centred education, which was intended to distinguish childhood from adulthood both socially, emotionally and intellectually. These were supposed to affect how a child learns. Central to Plowden’s idea was the review of what family and society needed from its school.
Plowden emphasised the importance of teaching according to the needs of children, that is, the focus should be on the children rather than concentrating on the future end product. Development of children should be individualised since children have differed skills? Plowden’s report tends to see the benefit of studying how children grow. The benefit from this study is that it continues to help to know the techniques to introduce in pedagogy. For example, group work was encouraged to help each other and to open an avenue for discussion. The report show that children should not be rushed into adulthood, they should be allowed to be children and the school should serve as a community to attain such objective.
Also, activity and experience which were emphasised by Rousseau and Froebel was one of Plowden’s foci. The ideas central to Plowden’s report can be seen clearly as progressive education. Education should be in line with what children need and in doing so the interest of each child should be identified and worked on. Emphasis is laid on allowing children to experience and learn things on their own, which is similar to the ideas of progressive school.
Neill Summerhill founded the Summerhill School in 1921 mainly for delinquent children. Neill was influenced by Homer Lane community called the little Commonwealth where he took care of such children; Neill admired the place and saw it as a place where child-centred education was administered, although it was not a school. Both Neill and Lane applied the psychoanalytical theory on the delinquents. Subsequently, Neill established Summerhill School and used similar theory to provide private lessons to the delinquents after which he admitted other children without behavioural problems. Neill, the founder of Summerhill believed in freedom of choice and few restrictions and boundaries similar to other progressive schools.
The works of Neill Summerhill which based on the practical experiences from his school has also contributed to the literature in progressive education. Summerhill School will be fully described next to shed more light on the experiences of Neil Summerhill.
SUMMERHILL SCHOOL
Summerhill School was founded in 1921 as a progressive and free school, which means that as a progressive school it is different from other schools in terms of its ethos. It is a school that provides an alternative form of education that centres on freedom of children from the domination of adults, specifically the government. “They rejected the idea of government operated schools because of the possibility that political leaders would use education to perpetuate their power” (Spring J. 1994:51)
In Summerhill, children are expected to use their capacity and self direction to fashion out the best way to live amongst themselves as a community. Summerhill is different from other progressive schools in one sense that parents are discouraged from visiting their children; this is probably due to Summerhill’s aim to free children from the holds of adults. Freedom of choice is exercised in Summerhill. Freedom of choice is good for children to help bring out the hidden potential in them. Each individual is free to do as he or she pleases as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others (Purdy Year? :15.) By this statement there are already some restrictions as to what one can do to enable children some freedom, freedom that is not qualified. “At Summerhill School freedom does not necessarily mean the abrogation of common sense” (Barrow 1978). To some extent, this implies that they are not really free to do what they like. Rules about freedom are ambiguous as according to Neill, no child under a certain age is allowed to swim in the absence of an instructor. This means that freedom to swim is restricted by a condition. Freedom for children is good as it will enable them to grow into autonomous beings. But allowing children much freedom without supervision may lead them into making wrong choices, because they are not matured and experienced enough to take rational decisions.
In Summerhill School there are no rules concerning what should be learned, in other words there are no compulsory classes for children. In earlier years, the main aim of public school education was to turn out Christian gentlemen that would become administrators and rulers working for the government. In contrast to the free schools, focus was and is still on meeting the individual needs of each child. Children in free schools do not partake in any religious education.
However, free schools come with different descriptions. In a progressive school like Darington parents are allowed to take part in the school council alongside the children. Free schools could be said to have the standards and beliefs of progressive schools, they are however more radical in their approach than progressive schools.
According to Spring (1994:59) “A.S. Neill (is this the same as Neill Summerhill?) was the founder of the most famous of the free schools”, He influenced the development of such schools in the other parts of the world. Neil (is this the same as Neill Summerhill?) connected anti-social behaviour in children as being (the repression of the children’s natural drive ) he did not believe in giving children moral instruction and he went further to relate moral instruction also to anti-social behaviour in children. On the whole, Neil (is this the same as Neill Summerhill?) wanted children to own themselves and be in control of their lives.
Summerhill School does not consider academic achievement or knowledge to be important to children there. “Lessons are optional; children can go to them or stay away from them for years if they want to” (Morden Educational Series 1973:15). Croall (1983:391) terms it “To fit the child to the school rather, than school to child” The aim of this idea is to remove adult outset of what a child should learn and this sort of disposition empowers the child to be free to learn whatever they wish to learn. He (who?) believed that childhood should be a time to play. Neill (which one?) emphasised on people being happy that it is only when one is happy that he or she is fulfilled irrespective of the person’s status. This compliments the statement he (who) made that he rather produced a menial worker that is happy than a doctor or scientist that is not happy.
Summerhill (the school or individual) is against compulsion and that children should learn what they are interested in. This philosophy is good if not taken to the extreme because some children may only be interested in different types of play. According to Barrow (1978:90) “One can compel attention, one cannot compel interest”. This may be particularly true because no one can be forced to do something they are not interested in. If for instance mathematics is not made compulsory in GCSE level, pupils that do not have interest in mathematics would not do it. When this analogy is thought of then Neil (which one) might be right. But considering this question of interest in another way; the same author above asserted that he may not be able to compel interest but can cause it. Most children if left unchallenged or undirected would definitely prefer to play rather than being engaged in any serious learning.
Some of them may miss out on those subjects that would have helped them in future life. Although children may prefer immediate satisfaction from their play, it is the responsibility of adults to look beyond what children prefer to what will be of benefit to them in the long run. This does not insinuate that play is not good for children rather this writer agrees that play helps children to develop their psychomotor and cognitive skills but there should be clarity as to where and when the limit of play is, so that they can engage in other learning.
On the whole children should be taught in such a way that will help them even at early age. Probably, children should be taught some reading, writing and simple arithmetic at Summerhill School. It could be true that a car mechanic does not need the knowledge of solving quadratic equation, if they are not thinking of becoming mechanical engineers in future. In any case a child needs to know how to read and write, skills they will definitely need in future. Children should also participate in other basic subjects at given ages even while engaging in play.
Self government and democracy is present at the Summerhill School. It is a community of children where children themselves are in control. Judgements on the children’s behaviour are not passed, but discipline is left in the lands of pupils during the school meeting. Laws are made in such meetings and everything linked with the children’s social life is decided during the general meetings. Adults may be present but the children lead the meetings. The children however have their own limitations imposed by the system as they do not have to decide on staffing, food, health and safety matters. Self government to the children is synonymous with directly having to having to deal with situations that concern them.
Freedom to make laws that bind their community teaches the children democracy and gets them interested in the world around them. Thus children build up capacity to direct their own lives as they converge every morning to discuss their community under no external influence. Through these meetings children learn how to tolerate one another and develop their personality as they leave school for the wider society. Summerhill’s rules and social implications are decided through democratic practices where everyone has a vote; this gives a child insight on the mechanics of how people are governed in a democratic society and how such decisions are reached.
One of the problems with pupils’ self government is that when they are left to make their rules and decisions, there is usually the danger of setting a standard they would be unable to keep, thus making the whole issue a ‘child’s affair’. The implication of this is that in every meeting, much of the deliberations will be on breaking the rules. The system becomes problematic and divisive because while some adults may accept the conditions some unsympathetic ones may see it as a chore and might feel that such a meeting is unnecessary. It may be difficult to draw a line as to where and how children should be left to make laws concerning their social lives as there is yet no empirical evidence about it. However, one thing is known that self-government is good for children for reasons given above, even though there may be weaknesses too.
SUMMERHILL PHILOSOPHY
One philosophy in Summerhill School is that children are innately wise and might recognize the elements that could generate or provoke tension. “Neill saw the child as ‘tabula rasa’ at birth, a personality neither good nor bad but which might turn out to be either good or bad depending on the type of upbringing provided” (Barrow 1978:81). This assertion implies that the environment has a part to play in the child’s upbringing.
Another philosophy in Summerhill School is that when a child is brought up under certain conditions he might turn out good; this statement is wide and presumptuous. There is no condition that can certainly shape children to become good, after all not all children that attended Summerhill came out as good citizens. The big question is how to determine what is good and by whose standards; One thing that is clear is that some circumstances can promote goodness. Again this depends on the individual because certain conditions that promote goodness in a person might be unable to promote goodness in the other person.
In Summerhill, the teachers and the teaching methods are quite different from that of the public school. Teachers in Summerhill and their pupils respect one another. The pleasantness that is sought-after in the child is also required from the adult. The children learn by themselves, the school is very much moulding the children’s character. Only the children interested in classes attend them and this ensures that there are no disturbances during classes. (A child’s emotions are more important than his intellectual process).
Teachers have no laid down method of teaching, but teachers that make their teachings interesting are obviously preferred and better for the understanding and development of children in that area. Neill assured that being a teacher is natural and inbred and all the training may not have contributed to their being a good teacher. Although some teachers are very good at their job, there are certain aspects of teaching that requires training. The child-centred education as we know it requires training, reading books written by progressive thinkers and other educators alike. In this writer’s view training contributes largely to producing a good teacher. However, Lamb [ed] (1995:107) noted some contradictions when Neill said “There are skills that have to be taught”. Some skills have to be indeed taught to a teacher.
Considered next is how children who attended Summerhill School adapt to the outside world once they have left school. Their experiences which can be traced back to their lifestyle at Summerhill will show how successful the school has been in preparing them for their future life. This may be a difficult task to prove because life after school may be affected by other factors like change of career, the environment and the individual in question. Other factor to be considered is the duration of pupils’ stay at Summerhill School - some have been there since their formative years while others only stayed there briefly.
Life after Summerhill
One of the positive things about attending Summerhill School can be seen in the practice of self-government where pupils are made to consider other people’s opinions and learn how to tolerate others. “Many ex-pupils spoke only on the positive side of tolerance, linking it specifically to the capacity to understand the reasons for other people’s behaviour” (Croall 1983:40). In a community where socialisation is essential, their propensity to tolerate others is a very good virtue. Ability to get on well with others will reduce tension in the society.
As mentioned before self-government helps give an insight to how democracy is practiced at government level. According to Croall some ex-pupils asserted that Summerhill School is the right way without giving specific reasons.
Many ex-students find the community outside Summerhill quite challenging with different attitudes, values and behaviour. Some find it extremely difficult to get on very well with others due to their personal experiences in school. The voluntary systems of attending lessons seem not to be too helpful either. Croall emphasized that a woman confessed to being unable to read or write, another person was of the opinion that his education in Summerhill suffered as he is neither knowledgeable nor well-informed, others felt that Summerhill had failed them academically.
“Giving a child freedom to decide whether to learn or not can result in restricting the child’s future freedom and happiness” (Spring J 1994:76). Reading, writing and basic mathematics are important subjects that should be taught at a given age and in this writer’s opinion it should be made compulsory.
In a progressive and free school like Summerhill children are exposed to the disciplines of reality, to love and see each other as equals, which is a good preparation for the real world. It has been seen that some former pupils end up with good careers. According to Lamb [ed] (1995: date missing; no it’s the page that is missing and can go like that) “There are doctors, lecturers artists and various kinds of professionals produced by Summerhills ...” This disproves the idea that there is no form of education going on there.
In conclusion, to form a particular judgment on Summerhill may not be an easy task; there are some aspects that people may not like such as the seeming unlimited freedom; for example having pupils decide as to whether or not to attend classes, which has been discussed earlier. On the other hand there are some practices that are admired by people in Summerhill and outside alike; for example the participatory teaching and learning and group work.
However, freedom in various free schools should be re-examined to ensure that these schools are promoting the right freedom for the children. In this writer’s opinion, freedom should be such that will enable one to understand how to achieve freedom in life after school. The sort of freedom that will deny children their right to useful knowledge is not good freedom. For instance, when one has freedom in school but cannot use the same freedom to exercise their rights in a democratic society due to their inability to read or write, such type of freedom is misplaced and wrong. The progressive and free education system may be considered too permissive compared to what public and state schools are but one cannot deny that the are more civilized and enlightened movement for tackling societal morals and addressing the endemic issues of corporal punishment within the education system..
Reference:
The New Encyclopaedia Britanica, Vol 9:722, 1995 Chicago.
