The Paideia Proposal: Adler's Vision for Democratic Education

Introduction: Democracy, Suffrage, and Universal Education

In a work written in the mid-1980s, Mortimer Adler stressed the fact that democracy, if it is to work effectively, must educate all those to whom it offers suffrage. Since the right to vote has finally been universalized — achieved only through great struggle in this nation — the education system must follow suit and educate those it expects to become full citizens. Adler stresses that, although the need to educate citizens in a democracy was recognized by early educational theorists such as Dewey, other educational groundbreakers also conveyed this message at the turn of the century, and many agreed. The message in fact harkens back to the idea of universal civic education, the foundation of the free public education system in the United States and elsewhere. Civic education demands core-principle learning — and especially information about the foundations of government and the responsibilities of the student to recognize and learn the best ways to participate in and contribute to a democratically governed society. This paper first analyzes the principles and body of The Paideia Proposal by Mortimer J. Adler and then discusses the nature of the current Paideia movement in the education system. (Adler, 1998, pp. 2–6)

At the beginning of the twentieth century, fewer than 10 percent of those of eligible age entered high school. Today, almost 100 percent of children enter secondary school, though not all complete it; many drop out for various reasons, some of them understandable. It has taken the better part of eighty years to go halfway toward the goal society must achieve if it is to be a true democracy. The halfway mark was reached when the nation finally managed to provide twelve years of basic public schooling for all children. At that point, the country was closer to the goal that Horace Mann set more than a century ago when he said: "Education is the gateway to equality." (pp. 4–5)

According to Adler, the goal has only been halfway realized. Although the nation now has the quantity of schools needed to advance democratic society, it must also ensure that those schools are equal in their ability to offer educational attainment to all who enter — and hopefully complete — their programs.

During a rather conservative phase in the nation's history — the 1980s Reagan years — Adler wrote his work, detailing the presence and purpose of the universal civic education system. He stresses that through this goal the nation has attempted to move forward, unwavering, toward universal education, graduation, and productive employment for all its citizens. A goal he stresses is as essential as universal suffrage: the creation of universal suffrage without universal public education can produce what he calls a "mobocracy" rather than a democracy, which he elaborates on further in the chapter on the basics of education. (p. 4) The road, according to Adler, has been long and difficult, but the early 1980s demonstrated a rebirth of the original understanding of free public education's purpose. Failing to reach this lofty goal has limited the ability of citizens to make informed choices rather than following elected officials through a fog of guesswork and name recognition.

Adler's Three Objectives and the Essentialist Framework

Adler writes: "There are signs on all sides that tell us the people want to move forward now. The time is ripe. Parents, teachers, leaders of government, labor unions, corporations — above all, the young themselves — have uttered passionate complaints about the declining quality of public schooling. There is no acceptable reason why trying to promote equality should have led to a lessening or loss of quality. … 'The best education for the best,' he said, 'is the best education for all.'" (p. 6)

Adler stresses that in an attempt to allocate resources to improve quantity, the system has been challenged, and the system must now respond by producing quality. Adler alludes to the idea that "dumbing down" the curriculum to meet the needs of those at the lower end of initial ability has weakened the core principles of the system, rendering it unable to hold the attention of those who excel — a strong ideological argument that can still be heard today, more than twenty years after this work's initial publication. Though Adler does not specifically agree with essentialist arguments, he guides his proposal through a set of essentialist language that can be understood by those who stress the three Rs as essential. (pp. 16–17)

Adler's essentialist argument is that a "one-track system of public schooling for twelve years must aim directly at three main objectives … determined by the vocations or callings common to all children when they grow up as citizens, earning their living and putting their free time to good use." (p. 16) According to Adler, the three main objectives are: first, to engender personal growth and self-improvement — mental, moral, and spiritual; second, civic education to fully engage in democratic rule; and third, the furtherance of the child's ability to earn a living as an adult, or vocational education. (pp. 16–17)

Reconciling Essentialist and Individualist Philosophies

The essentialist argument, as those who call themselves essentialists understand it, holds that the path to universal civic education lies in ensuring that all citizens receive an equal education strongly centered in the core subjects — mathematics, science, English language, literature, and grammar — as well as civic information that can serve as a common denominator. The goal is considered essential because it is the foundation of the entire nation's ability to compete in the world.

Adler's proposal is essentially an attempt to marry two seemingly incongruent schools of thought. The other school of thought — the "individualist" theory — holds that education should teach core subjects but in a manner more tailored to individual interests. This approach is guided by the principle that people are different and seek different ways to learn both core and specialty subjects, so as to meet their own desire to achieve and become their own brand of citizens through tailored learning. In many ways this goal is derived from years of educators and students seeking to engender the thirst for knowledge without being able to do so consistently. (Roberts, 2004, pp. 513–518)

The educational system has, up to this point, swung back and forth between these two philosophies — individualist and essentialist — in a pendulum effect, as educators seek to inspire a love of knowledge in students. Interestingly, the core principles of the Paideia Proposal can be applied to both swings of the pendulum, as it demands that core subjects be taught and demonstrated in a manner that meets each individual's greatest possible abilities through hands-on presentation and demonstration of learning. Each student demonstrates his or her learning through the creation of presentations or projects that require analysis and evaluation outside the classroom. For this to be effective, many essential elements must come into play: educators in a broader sense must view and critique student works; parents must be actively involved in critiques, not just of their own child's work; and students must hear such feedback so that they can effectively guide the manner in which they produce the next hands-on project. (Roberts, 2004, pp. 513–519)