To Prod the “Slumbering Giant,” the collection of 1971–72 “Discovery Lectures” sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship (AACS) was designed, as the book cover informs us, to be “A Christian Response to the Crisis in the Classroom.” Its analysis of the current educational problem is virtually dominated by the influential and popular 500-page book of Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom (1970). In response to the situation as delineated by Silberman it seeks to “prod the ‘slumbering giant,’ the Christian community, into realizing the crisis of commitment which confronts us when we consider how our children ought to be nurtured in the light of the Scriptures.” In the preface R. L. Carvill, quoting John Olthuis, further defines the purpose envisioned for the Christian schools as providing “the link between the present society and the possibilities for the emergence of a different type of society.”
Silberman’s Book
An evaluation of the AACS book may be more responsibly made if we first consider Silberman’s book to which it reacts. Silberman’s fascinating work was the product of what began as a study of teacher education and in four years developed into a study and critique of the whole are of American education and even of the society and culture of which it is a part. He bitterly criticized that education and the entire society for their “mindlessness,” for their “failure or refusal to think seriously about educational purpose” (p. 11) and therefore their degeneration to purposeless routine and regimentation.
Silberman traced various efforts to reform the schools. The “progressivism” of the 1920’s and 30’s, under the influence particularly of John Dewey, set out to make the schools “child-centered” instead of “subject-centered.” Ignoring some of Dewey’s warnings, their, in Dewey’s words, “absence of intellectual control through significant subject matter” stimulated “the deplorable egoitsm, cockiness, impertinence and disregard for the rights of others apparently considered by some persons to be the inevitable accompaniment, if not the essence of freedom” (p. 180), brought the movement into disrepute and provoked a reaction against it. That reaction of the 1950’s and 60’s, choosing for the opposite extreme and placing almost all emphasis on subject matter also turned out to be a failure. The development of new technology, particularly of computers, and their introduction into education has only contributed further to the mechanization of the educational process and further complicated “the most pressing educational problem how to create and maintain a humane society” (p. 203).
In his search for a solution to that problem Silberman turned to England. In the new educational movement there, as well as on a much smaller scale here and there in the U.S., toward what have been variously called “integrated curriculum,” “free school,” “open school,” and “informal education” he thought that he had found what he sought, the kind of school that could “be simultaneously child-centered and subject-or knowledge-centered” (p. 208). It was this kind of school in which each child was encouraged to follow very largely his own inclinations and proceed largely in his own way that Silberman recommended as the remedy for the current crisis in education.
What encouraged Silberman to believe that giving each child that kind of freedom would not result in the anarchy that wrecked the “progressive schools” which had previously experimented with it? The answer to that question is plainly that it was his basic faith, the faith of the “informal educators”: “they take an optimistic view of human nature, and they attempt . . . to help children become autonomous, self-motivated, and self-directed learners. Informal educators also have an optimistic view of the human beings—‘all human beings’—capacity for growth and fulfillment . . .” (p. 232).
A Christian Response?
Turning from Silberman’s book to the AACS lectures we observe as an outstanding characteristic that they tend in varying degrees to be dominated by Silberman’s study, not only in accepting his analysis of the current “crisis” in education but also in pursuing his recommendation of “free” or “open” schools as the solution of it. This “enslavement” to Silberman appears in an extreme degree in the one essay of the series which comes down out of the realm of theory and describes the envisioned working of this only proper kind of school. That is the essay of Mr. Adrian Peetoom (who, the introduction informs us, is a textbook salesman and field editor) entitled “Schools Are for Learning.” At the outset he informs us that “Schools are not places for teaching, they are places for learning.”
Peetoom states that in the past children were not permitted to be children but were only regarded as “adults in the making” (p. 121). He informs us that in previous times of high infant mortality rates parents “unconsciously” could not permit themselves to love infants “too much too soon” because they might lose them at any time, and he even attempts to support this amazing generalization by an appeal to Psalms 127 and 128 concluding that because they do not like Psalm 8:2, for example) speak of infants they prove this lack of love for little children (pp. 122–124). Now, for the first time, says Mr. Peetoom, all this has changed and children are beginning to be understood and appreciated as children. The child, he informs us, “can learn only when he finds himself in an environment which is right for him, in which he finds the circumstances, conditions, and also the materials which fit into his world, and belong to it. This is the principle for organizing the school for learning. Organizing the school for learning is simply creating a child’s proper environment, and the learning will take care of itself” (p. 128).
Proceedings from these assumptions Mr. Peetoom condemns the whole traditional system of the schools with their classroom organization and schedules, their “curriculum, school organization, teacher training, parents’ expectations, testing, reporting, evaluating, and finally thew hole reward system” as “all built on a foundation which we have already rejected as basically not in keeping with God’s created order” (p. 131). Instead of this he advocates “free schools” in which “the school buzzes with a hundred conversations at all times,” “there is a lot of wandering through the halls,” “a lot of kids sit on the floor,” “others stand up” and “there is a lot of laughter.” “There are lots of books, and you can find them everywhere.” “Every corner seems to have junk in it.” In this school in which children are free to follow their individual or group inclinations, one group is “building something,” the teacher may be “reading a story to six kids, sitting on the floor with them,” “in another corner a student is reading out loud to another small group,” “five kids are playing a game with sticks,” “one girl is lying upside down with hands over ears reading a book by herself,” and the teacher, trying to keep an eye on everything, “sees a fight developing and settles it.” This kind of school, Mr. Peetoom, following Silberman but without Silberman’s reservations and qualifications, recommends as the kind of school our Christian schools should become, claiming that “only Christian schools could safely undertake this kind of schooling” for only Christian teachers have the kind of vision which can make this kind of school work (p. 139).
Further Elaboration of this View
Although none of the other writers seem to advocate “free schools” as explicitly or in such detail as Peetoom does, they do in varying degrees seem to accept Silberman’s view of the problem and its solution, thinking that our Christian faith will make his kind of solution work.
James Olthuis, for example, dealing with “the pupil in the classroom” “rejects the classical curriculum-centered approach” because it does not do justice to “the individuality of the child.” That child must always be honored as an “image-bearer of God,” “a unique subject called by his Creator to make his own response. This being the case, one cannot decide for a person, he can only lead him to decide. One ought not to teach subjective responses, values and virtues, and thus attempt to make a person be good. Rather, the emphasis must be on teaching the norm in motivating the student to want to make the right response from his heart” (pp. 35, 36).
Olthuis proceeds to condemn as unbiblical the idea that “belief in the total depravity of the child dictates discipline in the sense of negativity; a holding down of evil in the child.” “Biblical discipline does not mean negative restricting, but a positive guiding of the child in his desire to learn.” He explains that although man is totally depraved and “the direction, the pattern, the fabric” of his life “outside of Christ is anti-God,” that does not mean that man is unable on certain functional levels to seek and do the right. “By virtue of the fact that he is still man, he desires on the functional level to do things right. Everyone wants to learn, to speak properly, to be fair, to build correctly, to drive safely, to be faithful, and so forth. Everyone has such desires because the structure of his manhood is held in place by the Word of God.” (Notice the striking parallel to Silberman’s faith in human nature, now defended as “Christianity.”) “This means that these built-in human desires must be appealed to in education stimulated, guided and formed, . nurtured if learning is to take place. They must be unfolded in a certain way so that the child begins to form himself in a way which is pleasing to the Lord.” “In summary, let me say that the total depravity of our children—which we share with them—may not be used as an excuse to deprive them of the pleasure of learning in a positive, alive, motivated environment” (pp. 37, 38).
Silberman’s Book
An evaluation of the AACS book may be more responsibly made if we first consider Silberman’s book to which it reacts. Silberman’s fascinating work was the product of what began as a study of teacher education and in four years developed into a study and critique of the whole are of American education and even of the society and culture of which it is a part. He bitterly criticized that education and the entire society for their “mindlessness,” for their “failure or refusal to think seriously about educational purpose” (p. 11) and therefore their degeneration to purposeless routine and regimentation.
Silberman traced various efforts to reform the schools. The “progressivism” of the 1920’s and 30’s, under the influence particularly of John Dewey, set out to make the schools “child-centered” instead of “subject-centered.” Ignoring some of Dewey’s warnings, their, in Dewey’s words, “absence of intellectual control through significant subject matter” stimulated “the deplorable egoitsm, cockiness, impertinence and disregard for the rights of others apparently considered by some persons to be the inevitable accompaniment, if not the essence of freedom” (p. 180), brought the movement into disrepute and provoked a reaction against it. That reaction of the 1950’s and 60’s, choosing for the opposite extreme and placing almost all emphasis on subject matter also turned out to be a failure. The development of new technology, particularly of computers, and their introduction into education has only contributed further to the mechanization of the educational process and further complicated “the most pressing educational problem how to create and maintain a humane society” (p. 203).
In his search for a solution to that problem Silberman turned to England. In the new educational movement there, as well as on a much smaller scale here and there in the U.S., toward what have been variously called “integrated curriculum,” “free school,” “open school,” and “informal education” he thought that he had found what he sought, the kind of school that could “be simultaneously child-centered and subject-or knowledge-centered” (p. 208). It was this kind of school in which each child was encouraged to follow very largely his own inclinations and proceed largely in his own way that Silberman recommended as the remedy for the current crisis in education.
What encouraged Silberman to believe that giving each child that kind of freedom would not result in the anarchy that wrecked the “progressive schools” which had previously experimented with it? The answer to that question is plainly that it was his basic faith, the faith of the “informal educators”: “they take an optimistic view of human nature, and they attempt . . . to help children become autonomous, self-motivated, and self-directed learners. Informal educators also have an optimistic view of the human beings—‘all human beings’—capacity for growth and fulfillment . . .” (p. 232).
A Christian Response?
Turning from Silberman’s book to the AACS lectures we observe as an outstanding characteristic that they tend in varying degrees to be dominated by Silberman’s study, not only in accepting his analysis of the current “crisis” in education but also in pursuing his recommendation of “free” or “open” schools as the solution of it. This “enslavement” to Silberman appears in an extreme degree in the one essay of the series which comes down out of the realm of theory and describes the envisioned working of this only proper kind of school. That is the essay of Mr. Adrian Peetoom (who, the introduction informs us, is a textbook salesman and field editor) entitled “Schools Are for Learning.” At the outset he informs us that “Schools are not places for teaching, they are places for learning.”
Peetoom states that in the past children were not permitted to be children but were only regarded as “adults in the making” (p. 121). He informs us that in previous times of high infant mortality rates parents “unconsciously” could not permit themselves to love infants “too much too soon” because they might lose them at any time, and he even attempts to support this amazing generalization by an appeal to Psalms 127 and 128 concluding that because they do not like Psalm 8:2, for example) speak of infants they prove this lack of love for little children (pp. 122–124). Now, for the first time, says Mr. Peetoom, all this has changed and children are beginning to be understood and appreciated as children. The child, he informs us, “can learn only when he finds himself in an environment which is right for him, in which he finds the circumstances, conditions, and also the materials which fit into his world, and belong to it. This is the principle for organizing the school for learning. Organizing the school for learning is simply creating a child’s proper environment, and the learning will take care of itself” (p. 128).
Proceedings from these assumptions Mr. Peetoom condemns the whole traditional system of the schools with their classroom organization and schedules, their “curriculum, school organization, teacher training, parents’ expectations, testing, reporting, evaluating, and finally thew hole reward system” as “all built on a foundation which we have already rejected as basically not in keeping with God’s created order” (p. 131). Instead of this he advocates “free schools” in which “the school buzzes with a hundred conversations at all times,” “there is a lot of wandering through the halls,” “a lot of kids sit on the floor,” “others stand up” and “there is a lot of laughter.” “There are lots of books, and you can find them everywhere.” “Every corner seems to have junk in it.” In this school in which children are free to follow their individual or group inclinations, one group is “building something,” the teacher may be “reading a story to six kids, sitting on the floor with them,” “in another corner a student is reading out loud to another small group,” “five kids are playing a game with sticks,” “one girl is lying upside down with hands over ears reading a book by herself,” and the teacher, trying to keep an eye on everything, “sees a fight developing and settles it.” This kind of school, Mr. Peetoom, following Silberman but without Silberman’s reservations and qualifications, recommends as the kind of school our Christian schools should become, claiming that “only Christian schools could safely undertake this kind of schooling” for only Christian teachers have the kind of vision which can make this kind of school work (p. 139).
Further Elaboration of this View
Although none of the other writers seem to advocate “free schools” as explicitly or in such detail as Peetoom does, they do in varying degrees seem to accept Silberman’s view of the problem and its solution, thinking that our Christian faith will make his kind of solution work.
James Olthuis, for example, dealing with “the pupil in the classroom” “rejects the classical curriculum-centered approach” because it does not do justice to “the individuality of the child.” That child must always be honored as an “image-bearer of God,” “a unique subject called by his Creator to make his own response. This being the case, one cannot decide for a person, he can only lead him to decide. One ought not to teach subjective responses, values and virtues, and thus attempt to make a person be good. Rather, the emphasis must be on teaching the norm in motivating the student to want to make the right response from his heart” (pp. 35, 36).
Olthuis proceeds to condemn as unbiblical the idea that “belief in the total depravity of the child dictates discipline in the sense of negativity; a holding down of evil in the child.” “Biblical discipline does not mean negative restricting, but a positive guiding of the child in his desire to learn.” He explains that although man is totally depraved and “the direction, the pattern, the fabric” of his life “outside of Christ is anti-God,” that does not mean that man is unable on certain functional levels to seek and do the right. “By virtue of the fact that he is still man, he desires on the functional level to do things right. Everyone wants to learn, to speak properly, to be fair, to build correctly, to drive safely, to be faithful, and so forth. Everyone has such desires because the structure of his manhood is held in place by the Word of God.” (Notice the striking parallel to Silberman’s faith in human nature, now defended as “Christianity.”) “This means that these built-in human desires must be appealed to in education stimulated, guided and formed, . nurtured if learning is to take place. They must be unfolded in a certain way so that the child begins to form himself in a way which is pleasing to the Lord.” “In summary, let me say that the total depravity of our children—which we share with them—may not be used as an excuse to deprive them of the pleasure of learning in a positive, alive, motivated environment” (pp. 37, 38).