Progressivism Post Modernism Perennialism and Reconstruction

TESOL Weekly Reflection I think that post-modern thought can be both good and bad (helpful and problematic) in terms of its impact on education today. For example, it can be helpful in the sense that it rejects or counters the modernist view (situated in the Enlightenment) that pure Reason can find an answer to all life's mysteries (Knight, 2008). Post-modernism points out that humans are often irrational in their thoughts and actions and that the subjective experience of the person is really all anyone knows.

While I disagree with this point that subjectivity is all anyone knows, I view it is a helpful way to counter the emphasis on pure Reason. At the same time it can be harmful if it is allowed to displace objectivity and truth completely. The post-modern perspective suggests that there is no real truth or at least no real way to it.

I think this is swinging too far in the opposite direction and that we must remember in education to keep hold of both the objective and the subjective perspectives, as both tell us who and what we are. Perennialism is good because it allows students the ability to discover the great ideas of the past, but it can be problematic too in that it can be used to promote a specific perspective or propagate a specific platform that is not in conjunction with the student's own aims.

Essentialism is good because it shows that students need systematic delivery of a basic core of understanding, but it can be problematic in the sense that this core can limit the potential/growth of the student if it is not satisfactorily designed. Progressivism is good because it focuses on the whole development of the young student; it can be problematic in the sense that it if it places too much emphasis on the young student's experimentation, the student can flounder without a proper guide when needed.

Reconstructionism is good because it points out the need to build a better world, but it can be problematic in the sense that it might not have a solid sense of which direction to work towards or of how the good should be defined (Knight, 2008). I believe we must redefine education to meet the needs of students today and in the near future simply because the world has changed so much and so rapidly and the end goal education has been muted.

Today students essentially sign their lives away in order to get a degree -- but once it is obtained and they are deep in debt they are finding it difficult to get employment. Education should serve a more practical purpose and be less exploitive. Technology should play a significant role in the future of education because we live in the Digital Age and this should be accepted and embraced as reality. Choice-driven competition will bring about long-term improvement in education only if the education is affordable and purposeful.

If educational standards and guides continue to push students down the path of life-long debt without hope of a better future, a real revolt against education will take place and society will take a serious stumble. As Koonce (2016) notes, there is no easy path towards "fixing" education -- what must be admitted though is that it is a serious issue that has to be addressed with honesty.

Good citizenship can be defined as that which characterizes a person who is informed about the issues facing society and how to properly address; he/she is involved in the civic.