Dewey's Vision of Schooling in Utopia

Who Should Play a Part in Developing Curriculum for Schools and Why?

Introduction

One of the first things to leap out at the reader of John Dewey’s description of schools in Utopia is the fact that he gives primacy of place to parents—meaning that only those married people who have had children of their own are allowed to have positions of authority in the “schools” or assemblies where children learn from their elders. Dewey (1933) begins the section with the subtitle “Parenthood Required” and proceeds to state that “the adults who are most actively concerned with the young have, of course, to meet a certain requirement, and the first thing that struck me as a visitor to Utopia was that they must all be married persons and, except in exceptional cases, must have had children of their own.” In short, Dewey holds that parents should hold a special place in the education of children: they have been there with their own; they know what children go through and what they need. Parents, moreover, represent the authority in the home; they represent the family, and no school can exist without families. Thus, when it comes to one of the central questions of this course—as in, who should help schools develop curriculum?—there can be no better answer than parents, as Dewey (1933) points out, first and foremost. For when it comes to stakeholders in education, there are communities, businesses, educators, policy makers, and more—but at the top of that list there are students and there are parents.

Background

The historical approach to curriculum development was driven by experts, such as curriculum specialists, educational researchers, and policy-makers, who were seen as having the knowledge and expertise to design a curriculum that would best serve the needs of the students. However, this approach was criticized for its lack of consideration for the needs and interests of the students, teachers, and communities who would be affected by the curriculum (Kliebard, 2004). Criticism of the expert-driven approach is that it can lead to a top-down approach to education that undermines the autonomy and creativity of teachers. Teachers are often seen as mere implementers of the curriculum, rather than active participants in its development (Alnefaie, 2016). This can lead to a disconnect between what is taught in the classroom and the needs and interests of the students.

As a result, there has been a shift towards more democratic and participatory approaches to curriculum development. This approach recognizes that students, teachers, and community members have valuable knowledge and expertise that can contribute to the design of a meaningful and effective curriculum (Kliebard, 2004).

For example, participatory action research (PAR) is a collaborative approach to curriculum development that involves students, teachers, and community members in the process of identifying and addressing educational issues (MacDonald, 2012). PAR is based on the idea that the people most affected by a problem are the best equipped to solve it. By involving all stakeholders in the process of curriculum development, PAR can create a curriculum that reflects the needs and interests of the students, teachers, and community members.

Another example of a democratic approach to curriculum development is the community-based curriculum (Kliebard, 2004). This approach involves collaborating with local community members to design a curriculum that is relevant to the students' cultural and social contexts. Community members can share their knowledge and expertise to create a curriculum that reflects the history, culture, and values of the community.

Dewey’s Theory and Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is at the heart of Dewey’s vision of education in a utopian society—that is why he sees experienced adults as the main directors and shapers of the child’s education. Experiential learning is based on the idea that a young learner can learn through direct interaction with others who have knowledge and skills (Kolb, 2014). This ties in with the concept of the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a concept introduced by Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist and philosopher, to describe the range of tasks that a child can perform with assistance when interacting or observing others who are older or more skilled or developed. According to Vygotsky, a child's development is shaped by the interactions they have with more knowledgeable individuals, such as parents or teachers, who can provide guidance and support in completing challenging tasks. Dewey’s vision of utopian schools aligns with the concept of ZPD and experiential learning, so long as that experience is directed by adults who are married (a sign of commitment and consistency) and who have had children of their own (a sign of experience and understanding).

The ZPD refers to the gap between what a child can do independently and what they can achieve with assistance. This zone is seen as the optimal range for learning, as it allows children to stretch their abilities and develop new skills with the guidance of a more knowledgeable other. This gap is best filled by parents in a director-role in Dewey’s vision. In my vision, I see parents as playing a primary role in curriculum development, as they give input to educators, administrators, policy makers, business leaders, and so on. Parents are the ultimate guides and guardians of students. But at some point they must realize that they cannot do it all on thei own. They must rely on other instructors for aid and support—and this is why Dewey admits as much in his vision. But Dewey insists instructors have basic virtues (i.e., that they be married) and that they have experience with children. Vygotsky argued that by providing appropriate support, a child can gradually internalize the strategies and knowledge they need to perform the task independently. This is the ultimate goal of education.

The theory of playful learning can be tied in here as well, as it builds on Vygotsky's ideas about the importance of social interaction in learning. Playful learning is a teaching approach that uses play as a means of promoting learning and development (Rice, 2009). It is based on the idea that play is a natural and engaging activity for children that can be used to support their learning in a range of subject areas.

Playful learning typically involves activities that are open-ended and child-directed, allowing children to explore and experiment with ideas and concepts at their own pace. Playful learning can also involve collaborative play, in which children work together to solve problems and achieve shared goals. According to the theory of playful learning, play can provide a context for learning that is motivating, engaging, and meaningful for children (Rice, 2009). Playful learning activities can help children develop a range of skills, such as problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking, as well as social and emotional competencies, such as communication, collaboration, and empathy. So playful learning offers an alternative to parent/teacher directed activities, which is also part of my vision. I do not want to see schools that are totally parent/teacher directed; I also want learners to have the opportunity to stretch out on their own and go towards the paths that are most appealing to them. I believe every child has natural gifts and talents that are God-given, and these talents need room to grow. That can happen through a combination of parent/teacher direction and child-directed learning. The two should go together, and curriculum development should reflect these needs.

Dewey’s Theory, Character Education, and Constructivist Theory

Dewey envisioned a kind of learning process in which there were no “schools” so to speak but rather children learned by doing—by being part of an assembly or group (no bigger than 200 people) with whom bonds could be fostered and lessons learned. Underlying this approach appears to be an assumption that character education will be built into this experience—but this is an important concept that has to be considered along with Dewey’s vision, for character education is sorely lacking in today’s schools (Pala, 2011).

Why should character education matter? This is really the most important question, for it is this that underscores everything about education: a technical training is not an education—it is a technical training. An education must be focused on the mind and the heart and making sure they are oriented towards right action, i.e., virtue (Pala, 2011). Adults who have been there and done that and who have virtues to demonstrate are thus hand-picked by Dewey in his vision as being the main leaders in the utopian school. The implicit point is that this is how character will best be developed.

In my vision, character education should be an important part of curriculum development because it plays a critical role in promoting the development of ethical, responsible, and compassionate individuals who are equipped to contribute positively to society. Character education refers to the intentional cultivation of values, attitudes, and behaviors that promote social and emotional well-being, as well as academic success (Pala, 2011).

There are several reasons why character education should be a central part of curriculum development. First, character education provides students with the tools they need to navigate complex social and ethical issues. In today's world, students will be faced with a wide range of moral and ethical challenges, especially as they age. For instance, they may be faced with questions such as, “Should I cheat? Should I steal? Should I hold grudges? Should I forgive? Should I be angry? Should I be kind? What response should I make when offended? Should I give offense?” In our increasingly divided and divisive culture, these are the typical types of moral quandries one can expect to face. By developing a strong moral and ethical foundation through character education, students can be better equipped to make positive choices and resist negative influences (Pala, 2011). This type of education can be guided through parental input and usually focuses on humanities.

Second, character education helps to foster a positive school culture that promotes respect, empathy, and cooperation. This will be essential for any type of vision of schooling that aligns with Dewey’s vision, with the constructivist approach, with ZPD, and so on. By emphasizing the importance of values such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility, character education creates a supportive and inclusive learning environment that promotes academic success and personal growth.

Third, character education helps to prepare students for active and engaged citizenship. This is key to Dewey’s vision and my vision which follows after Dewey’s. It also sheds light on who should be involved in playing a role in curriculum development: the community needs to be involved, but because there is a structure to society, with families being the nucleus, so to speak, the major role players first and foremost need to be parents. They are responsible for highlighting the types of civic engagement they want to see from their children. By developing a sense of civic responsibility and social awareness, students are empowered to make a positive impact in their communities and the world at large. This is particularly important in today's globalized world, where the actions of individuals can have far-reaching and significant consequences.

Another theory that has influenced my thinking on curriculum development is the constructivist theory. I agree with the constructivist theory's emphasis on active learning and the role of the learner in constructing their own understanding (Bada & Olusegun, 2015). I believe that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process, rather than simply receiving information from a teacher. However, there is also another theory, which I think is important to at least consider, which is critical theory. As a curriculum developer, I believe it is important to consider the ways in which curriculum can perpetuate or challenge existing power structures and inequalities, as Freire (2018) explains.

I support the constructivist theory because I believe that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process. This means that curriculum should be designed to provide opportunities for students to explore, experiment, and construct their own understanding of the subject matter. At the same time, I also believe that it is important to consider the ways in which curriculum can perpetuate or challenge existing power structures and inequalities. For example, what happens if Dewey’s utopian schools are actually led by adults who have their own interests in mind and not the best interests of students, parents or other stakeholders who would benefit from an education of empowerment and self-determination? It would lead to a continuation of inequalities and a culture of oppression akin to what Freire (2018) describes. This means that curriculum should be designed with a critical lens, taking into account the diverse perspectives and experiences of students and their communities.

Scholars who are critical of constructivist theory may argue that it places too much emphasis on the individual learner, ignoring the broader social and cultural contexts in which learning takes place (O’loughlin, 1992). They may also argue that constructivist approaches can be overly permissive, allowing students to construct their own misconceptions and reinforcing existing biases and prejudices. However, I would argue that a constructivist approach aligns with the notion of ZPD and play-based learning in which younger children learn from older children, and older children learn from adults and mentors. Neither is it a theory that necessarily ignores the broader social and cultural contexts of learning; instead, it acknowledges that learning is a dynamic process that involves the interaction of multiple stakeholders. I also believe that a constructivist approach can be structured in ways that support critical reflection and inquiry, allowing students to grow in meaningful ways that encourage active learning and development.

Similarly, scholars who are critical of critical theory may argue that it is too politically motivated and fails to provide practical guidance for curriculum development. They may also argue that critical theory can be overly prescriptive, leading to a rigid and inflexible curriculum that does not adequately address the needs and interests of individual students. In response, I would argue that a critical theory perspective is essential for understanding the social and political dimensions of education and for ensuring that curriculum development. I think Freire’s (2018) Pedagogy of the Oppressed is an important work that really highlights the way power structures are conveyed in education to prevent students from developing in a way that will actually empower them to achieve self-determination.

In terms of the historical evolution of the field of curriculum studies, my ideas are connected to the work of John Dewey, who emphasized the importance of active learning and experiential education. Dewey believed that education should be student-centered and focused on the development of the whole person, rather than simply the transmission of knowledge. My ideas are also connected to the critical theory tradition, which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in response to concerns about social inequality and injustice in education. They are connected to Vygotsky and his work as well. They also find a foundation in Aristotelian education, i.e., the focus on virtue ethics and character education (Pala, 2011).

Various scholars would likely respond differently to my proposal, depending on their own theoretical orientations and values. Scholars who emphasize traditional methods of instruction and a focus on standardized testing may view my ideas as overly progressive or lacking in rigor. However, scholars who share my commitment to student-centered and socially just education would likely view my ideas as valuable and necessary for creating meaningful and engaging learning experiences for all students. The main key here is that curriculum needs a holistic approach that considers the primary role players in development—and that is parents and students, and secondary stakeholders should be a supportive role but also in agreement with the overall vision.

Who Should Play a Part in Developing Curriculum for Schools and Why?

Parents, teachers, students, and community leaders should be role players in the development of curriculum, in that order. Parents are natural guides and guardians and have the highest stake in directing their children. Children are next as they are the learners who have special God-given talents, and so on.

First, parents have a unique perspective on their children's needs, interests, strengths, and weaknesses, and are in the best position to provide input on what should be included in the curriculum. As primary caregivers, they are invested in ensuring that their children receive an education that prepares them for success in the future and meets their individual needs.

Teachers, on the other hand, are experts in their field and have the knowledge and experience to design and implement effective instructional strategies and assessment methods. They have a deep understanding of their students' learning styles and needs, and are able to tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of their students.

Students, as the primary learners, should also have a voice in the development of curriculum. They are the ones who are directly impacted by the curriculum, and their input can provide valuable insight into what is effective and relevant to their learning needs.