Bobbitt and Dewey: Theories for 2006? (NCLB)

October 25, 2006
Abstract

John Dewey and Franklin Bobbitt have long been at odds with each other. From their central values and key themes to actual classroom management they differ. Although they practiced in the same era they could not agree even to the reason for educating a child. This paper examines their theories, compares them to my own curriculum values, describes some of the curriculum challenges of today, and contemplates how these century old theories stand up to the current test-happy era in which we now live.

---------------------------
Bobbitt and Dewey: Theories for 2006?

Franklin Bobbitt and John Dewey are well known curriculum theorists who lived from the mid-1800s to 1952. This was a time of great change for America; machines allowed for mass production; the railway was developed; markets expanded; people moved from farms to cities in mass; and there was a great demand for a high performing workforce. While both Bobbitt and Dewey shared the vision that students should contribute to a successful society their theories are diverse.

Franklin Bobbitt claimed curriculums previously developed by amateurs were out of date, and he wanted to be the pioneer professional in the field (Thornton & Flinders, 1997). In his earlier works Bobbitt said, "Education is a shaping process as much as the manufacture of steel rails" (Bobbitt, 1912, p. 11). This certainly reflects the times in which he lived! Scientific management and social efficiency takes a center stage in his work (Eisner, 1985). He focused on setting objectives, and breaking down the steps to achievement. Order and structure are very important. Bobbitt believed teachers should prepare students to take their place in society and make a successful living; education is “coming to the need of work-activities as the only possible normal method of preparing for the work of the world” (Bobbitt, 1917, p. 20). Students were empty vessels ready to have the expert fill them with knowledge. In other words, he believed in outcomes and work-force preparedness. In The Curriculum he writes:

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives. (1918: 42)

John Dewey believed in learning through discovery and life experiences. He thought the most valuable lessons were interdisciplinary, and children should have a values-based, active education. The teacher’s role was to encourage problem-solving and critical thinking. In My Pedagogic Creed he wrote:

I believe that the question of method is ultimately reducible to the question of the order of development of the child's powers and interests. The law for presenting and treating material is the law implicit within the child's own nature (1897, pp. 77-80)

Dewey believed in learning by discovering, and having life experiences. Dewey wanted students to learn to think for themselves (Thornton & Flinders). Dewey was often misinterpreted, and some thought his ideas provided for a lazy classroom. In 1938 he wrote Experience and Education in order to clarify his theories. He wrote the curriculum that starts with the experience of the child “increased rather than replaced the demands on judgment by the teacher in directing each pupil’s learning toward worthwhile goals” (Thornton & Flinders, p. 4).

Their reasons for education children were different. Bobbitt was an essentialist emphasizing an objective centered, efficiency based model of education concentrating on assimilating the student into society in order for them to fill the employer’s needs. Dewey was a progressive who
believed teaching should be culturally relevant and student centered, producing an active citizen ready for a changing society.

Bobbitt believed “the interest of children as irrelevant to the educational process” and “curriculum work was a practical task whose only need for theoretical justification had been “discovered” analyzing the behavior of successful adults” (Thornton & Flinders, p. 3). And Dewey said “True education comes through the stimulation of the child’s powers by the demand of the social situations in which he finds himself” (Dewey, 1897). They apparently did agree that subject matter had to have an educational use and both questioned whether history should be a school subject (Thornton & Flinders).

I believe a healthy curriculum allows children to love learning and develop a passion for being inquisitive. A good curriculum will also allow for development of critical thinking and the ability to apply knowledge to different applications. Finally, it should allow for lifelong learning encouraging where to find information, not necessarily concentrating on having the knowledge within. With these criteria I have to say I appreciate Dewey’s theories more than Bobbitt’s. Dewey realized things were changing fast in society, and his theories concentrated on critical thinking and the development of the person in order to prepare them for the rest of their life. I think Bobbitt, though a product of the industrialization era, was short sighted. He seemed to concentrate on preparing a body to go out and work (be productive) for an employer. In a world that was changing so rapidly it seems that learning the specifics of a particular job was not looking to the long term benefit of the pupil. However, I must admit, with a background in accounting I am always interested in measuring, proving, and facts and figures, so parts of
Bobbitt’s theories resonate with me. Being efficient and objective-centered is important to me, and in this era of outcome-based measurement it would seem that Bobbitt’s theories are certainly more applicable than Dewey’s.

Bobbitt and the Current Climate of Testing in 2006

Of late much has been said regarding the sad state of affairs of our public education system. We see high schools accuse middle schools who accuse elementary schools for not preparing students, and colleges with record high remediation needs for entering freshmen. One half of freshmen entering the California State University System need remediation in English or math, and most often they need remediation in both English and math.

The “No Child Left Behind” legislation proves the concern is not limited to one school, one district, or one state. This national push for standardized testing, with strict result requirements lest your school be punished (fewer funding dollars, teaching by reading from a script), has schools teaching to the test. This is causing stress for teachers, students, and parents. The love of teaching, the love of learning, and a child-centered curriculum is something of the past.

While “No Child Left Behind” concentrates on K – 12, the higher educational institutions are not immune to scrutiny. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education continues to edit their 2006 report; however the Commission currently calls for the creation of a “national accreditation framework,” and asks the National Assessment of Educational Progress be revised to measure students’ readiness for college and employment. The Commission also recommends accreditation agencies “act in a more timely manner” to get their reports done and distributed and to share any results with the public. As stated in the August 8, 2006 draft of the report:

We recommend that America’s colleges and universities embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement. We urge these institutions to develop new pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, particularly in the area of science and mathematical literacy. At the same time, we recommend the development of a national strategy for lifelong learning designed to keep our citizens and our nation at the forefront of the knowledge revolution (p. 8).

Accreditation agencies such as the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE), ABET (the recognized U.S. accreditor of college and university programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and technology), and The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) have also become more outcomes driven, requiring examples of student learning as well as an aggregation of assessment data for internal program evaluation. The AACSB sums up the importance of accreditation in their brochure aimed at businesses.

Assurance of learning to demonstrate accountability (such as in accreditation) is an important reason to assess learning accomplishments. Measures of learning an assure external constituents such as potential students, trustees, public officials, supporters, and accreditors, that the organization meets its goals. Another important function for measures of learning is to assist the school and faculty members to improve programs and courses. By measuring learning the school can evaluate its students’ success at achieving learning goals, can use the measures to plan improvement efforts, and (depending on the type of measures) can provide feedback and guidance for individual students (http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/STANDARDS.pdf).

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) President and Executive Director Ralph Wolff recently gave a speech claiming “We are moving from assessment to accountability. Shifting to National, State, and System levels as opposed to local, and assessment should be a systematic process about setting goals” (LiveText Annual Meeting, 2006, Chicago Il.). WASC provides a workshop that embraces improvement, and asks the attendee to consider the accreditation process an opportunity to learning something rather than proving something, which is inline with the Commission’s suggestion for continued improvement.

Even though these demands are couched in suggestive statements such as “suggestions for continued improvement” it is still the students who go through the testing to provide the data for “measuring students’ readiness”, “indicators of performance”, and “examples of student learning”. These new testing requirements from NCLB, NCATE, ABET, and WASC align very well with Bobbitt’s theories.

He believed that diagnostic testing and other procedures proposed by behavioral psychologists such as Edward L. Thorndike would make possible prediction of the kind of errors students typically made. This would enable more efficient curriculum making as well as prevent unnecessary time being spent on the costly business of instruction . . . Bobbitt wanted to maximize output (i.e., student learning) at minimum cost (i.e., paying teachers) (Thornton & Flinders, p. 3).

Clearly Bobbitt would appreciate all of the assessment and testing we are going though, and Dewey might wonder what was happening to the child because most of what is being taught is not culturally relevant or child-centered. Sadly, these testing times do not engender my values in a curriculum, either. It seems we fill the students with facts and test them over and over, rather than teaching them where to find the information, or how to love learning, or how to think critically. Historically we have adopted different curriculums at different times in history depending on the political climate. I have heard from people who have lived longer and seen more that this is just another phase. Let’s hope it passes quickly.

References
AASCB Standards - http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/STANDARDS.pdf Retrieved October 8, 2006.
ABET Mission, Vision and Strategic Plan http://www.abet.org/mission.shtml. Retrieved October 9, 2006.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bobbitt, F. (1912). The Elimination of Waste in Education [Electronic Version], The Elementary School Teacher, Vol. 12, No. 6, 259-271. February 1912.
California State University - English, Math Proficiency of CSU Freshmen Shows Modest
Increases (March 14, 2006). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.calstate.edu/PA/news/2006/ english_math_proficiency.shtml.
Commission on the Future of Higher Education - Revised Draft Report, dated August 8, 2006. Retrieve Wednesday, August 16, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/ list/hiedfuture/ index.html.
Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. First published in The School Journal, Volume LIV, Number 3 (January 16, 1897), pages 77-80.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Art of Educational Evaluation, Lewes: Falmer Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893 - 1958, New York: Routledge.
Thornton, S. J. and Flinders, D. J. (Eds.). (1997), The Curriculum Studies Reader, London: Routledge.
WASC workshops are listed on http://www.wascsenior.org/wasc/, with accompanying PowerPoint presentations as of 8/15/06.