Summer

Stevenson
Winter, 2018

Philosophy of Education Statement

Throughout my entire education I have been told to “play school,” to sit down, shut up,
and do my work without question. If I could cause the least amount of controversy possible, I
would be able to just get through my day and eventually move on to “bigger and better” things.
The more compliant I was the more rewards I saw, from grades and scholarships to reference
letters. School taught me to conform for the convenience of others and I was left finding
moments outside of the classroom that allowed me to question, create meaning through
education, and challenge the status quo. I begin my personal philosophy of education
statement with this because it has dramatically shaped how I view knowledge, education, and
schooling today.

Fundamentally, education is a means to understanding ourselves and the world in order
to better both. As educators, our job is to teach students to become lifelong learners, persistent
questioners, and critical thinkers that challenge the status quo and use literacy and education
as tools to counter oppression. By fostering civic education and engagement our school system
can work to produce citizens as opposed to employees. While this may be challenging, the art
and science of teaching must look beyond determining what required knowledge and facts are
essential for “success” and begin deconstructing what it means to be successful in the 21st
century.

Success in civic education looks dramatically different depending on the perceived
relationship between education and the State. For Plato, education and the State were reliant
on one another to successfully function (Cooney et al., 1993, p. 21). Continued function of the
State relied on citizens that could reinforce its ideals through participation in the just society.
This idea formed the foundation of Horace Mann’s educational reform that focused on creating
“an informed, literate electorate” that could function within a democracy to insure its stability
and growth (Cooney et al., 1993, p. 91). While Mann believed that teaching civic responsibility
should not be based on a single doctrine, but rather through practical morality and democratic
ideals formed by the common culture, it does not require a great leap to question whether this
can be accomplished in reality. As John Dewey argued, States came to see education as a tool
to maintain “a particular national sovereignty [that] required subordination of individuals to the
superior interests of the state” which although may have formed the citizen, it did not form the
‘man’ (1916, p. 90).

To me, success in civic education requires a switch from a focus on loyalty to the Nation
State to the idea of global citizenship in order to counteract the potential impacts of
nationalism and conformity that lead to an unwavering support of said Nation State. This type
of citizenship requires students to participate in solving local, national, and global problems but
does not ignore the importance of personal growth and development. The ability to participate
in the betterment of both self and State requires the belief that it is possible for people to be


both simultaneously good people and good citizens. Students should not be encouraged to
reproduce the desires of the State, or those of stakeholders that control the State, but rather
identify their role in society at large and discover the different ways that they can operate
within it as moral citizens.

So how can we achieve this type of success? We can look to increasing the amount of
character education in our public schools and teach students what it means to be both a good
person and a good citizen. This does not mean establishing a curriculum of values that must be
imposed on students but rather developing an environment where students can develop and
use their critical thinking skills – how to construct and dissect an argument, how to write well-
reasoned critical response, how to debate a controversy – to identify the values important to
the society at large and their validity, as well as discuss what different moral situations require
of persons. These skills cannot be separated from the larger curriculum of subject based
learning, or the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy, as they are dependent on a student
having enough information about a topic in order to reason about it.

Students do not enter our classroom as blank slates, they come with their own sets of
values and understandings. We must be receptive to this and connect new learning to their
previous knowledge by “creating activities that challenge [their] suppositions about how the
world works and about our political and social structures,” (Dunn, 2005, p. 232). Students have
the most to learn from each other and teachers should facilitate opportunities for student
centered groups in order to maximize the benefits of students teaching and sharing. The
teacher remains a facilitator of learning and not the holder of knowledge and thought. As a
fellow global citizen, educators assume the position of both a teacher and a learner alongside
their students.

This requires educators that are willing to be challenged, by both the subject matter
that they are teaching and their students. It can be challenging to operate in an environment
where you are being questioned and where you aren’t seen as the expert. However, using
authority as a buffer between the self and criticism doesn’t contribute to the overall learning
and understanding of the wider community. It almost requires a fundamental shift in our
understanding of power hierarchies in education and the wider State. I am not encouraging a
free-for-all environment where there is no structure or respect but rather a shift in the way that
respect is expected to be gained.

Questioning is a valuable skill but if it lacks direction or purpose it can impede learning,
progress, and the understanding of effective global citizenship. Students should have a platform
to practice structured questioning – questioning for purpose – by creating a democratic culture
within schools. This can help prepare students to operate within the political system by giving
them the capacity to evaluate the talents, character, and performance of public officials, while
helping shape productive relationships with adults and peers (Galston, 1989). Of course, this
comes with its own set of limitations as students cannot, and should not, be given free reign
over how a school operates (ex., safety protocols and procedures).

 The application of these concepts and strategies should change throughout a child’s
years of school in accordance with general cognitive abilities and stages of development.
Primary education should focus on what being a good person looks like, how to interact
cooperatively with others, and autonomy. This is the time where students should establish a
positive connection with learning and begin to develop an understanding of the world around
them and how to operate within it. These fundamental skills, along with literacy and numeracy,
will help support students as they move on and learn about good citizenship and civic
education.

We need to look beyond the confines of the classroom and incorporate opportunities
for guided experiential civic education. This can take the form of attending and participating in
political meetings; organizing and running meetings, rallies, protests, fund drives; or gathering
signatures for bills, ballots, and initiatives. By exposing students to different environments,
organizations, and communities it can broaden their understandings of the State in which they
live. This also supports the expansion of alternative education programs like the Independent
Project that encourage students to pursue their interests and work to solve problems that are
meaningful to them.

Rather than preparing students for an imagined future, we need to prepare students to
create their own future. As lifelong learners, persistent questioners, and critical thinkers,
students are equipped with the skills to act as engaged global citizens as they navigate their
worlds. The goal of civic education isn’t to produce people that will reinforce the desires of the
State, nor is it meant to produce entire generations of movers-and-shakers. At its core, civic
education provides an avenue to use knowledge and facts in a meaningful way to produce
compassionate and engaged citizens who understand that everybody has their own
perspective.

References

Cooney, W., Cross, C., & Trunk, B. (1993). From Piaget to Plato. New York: University Press of
America.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Dunn, S. G. (2005). Philosophical Foundations of Education: Connecting Philosophy to Theory
and Practice. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Galston, W. (1989). Civic Education in the Liberal State. In Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism
and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.