_______________

FINAL PAPER

Submitted to the

Graduate School of the

Cor Jesu College, Inc.

Digos City

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements in MAED – TE 1

Foundation of Education

_______________

By

JASPER P. BELLEZAS

JANUARY 6, 2021
INTRODUCTION

In this day and age, education seamlessly progress from basic pen and paper to

numerous ideals which inculcated in the development of educational reforms. Development is

always a key integration in the essence of what education needs to uphold. Times are changing,

and so are the learners. We continue to derive with new ideas on how we will make education

better and at the same time, inculcate the past learnings in which our forefathers left for us to

inherit. This basically sums up the point in which this paper reflects upon. This will tackle the

corresponding idea of what needs to stay, needs to change, needs to imply and the

wholesomeness of what needs to be attained. Although many have used Rousseau’s work for

the development of the child, there are also some misguided reforms on his work, in which this

paper will specify. Rosseau’s idea is generally good in terms of early childhood education, and

many would argue that in its perpetuity is basically what is needed in our educational system.

Even in this sense, there are also factors this paper will try to disseminate in order to shed some

light to the shortcomings of his work. Needless to say, that his work is revolutionary in terms of

a child-centered approach, but in reality, a third world country like the Philippines finds it hard

to adapt to his ideas based upon many contradictions.

To start off, the educational theory in which this paper is going to discuss is the

Naturalistic and Progressive approach of Rousseau’s work in his Image of “Modern Education”.

(mostly his work on emile). Inadvertent as it may have been, and even though Rousseau’s

enthusiasm took the form of theory run mad, and the educational plan he proposed was largely

impossible, the result of his work was to popularize a new educational perspective, not only in

France, but among the reading public of the progressive European states as well. "It would be

difficult to find a man in the history of thought who with so much half-truth has made as deep

an impression on mankind as Rousseau" (Ulich, 1968, p.211).

As a result of these ideas, Rousseau and Dewey promoted what has since been labeled

the “child-centered” approach to education. For them, education is concerned with hands-on

experience and physical activities and manipulations—the only true knowledge—with an

emphasis on vocational preparation. They saw the rightful foundation of these endeavors as the

natural impulses of the child. Based upon the natural goodness of man, they charged previous

education with suppressing these impulses as vices and, thereby, with suppressing the selfhood

of the child. These impulses should be set free from adult correction or discipline and utilized as

guides for classroom activities and instruction. In this way, the ideas of Dewey, reflecting those

of Rousseau’s “noble savage,” led to traditional virtue and notions of sin or evil being replaced

in America’s educational system by the savage’s right to be “himself,” a shift which encouraged

an egocentric, i.e. selfish or prideful, approach to knowledge. The results of such a shift are all

too evident in our current situation.

PROS

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) famously insisted that formal education, like society

itself, is inevitably corrupting; he argued that education should enable the “natural” and “free”

development of children, a view that eventually led to the modern movement known as “open

education.” These ideas are in some ways reflected in 20th-century “progressivism,” a

movement often (but not always accurately) associated with Dewey. Unlike Plato, Rousseau

also prescribed fundamentally distinct educations for boys and girls, and in doing so he raised

issues concerning gender and its place in education that are of central concern today. Dewey

emphasized the educational centrality of experience and held that experience is genuinely

educational only when it leads to “growth.” But the idea that the aim of education is growth

has proved to be a problematic and controversial one, and even the meaning of the slogan is

unclear. Dewey also emphasized the importance of the student’s own interests in determining

appropriate educational activities and ends-in-view; in this respect he is usually seen as a

proponent of “child-centered” education, though he also stressed the importance of students’

understanding of traditional subject matter. While these Deweyan themes are strongly
reminiscent of Rousseau, Dewey placed them in a far more sophisticated—albeit

philosophically contentious—context. He emphasized the central importance of education for

the health of democratic social and political institutions, and he developed his educational and

political views from a foundation of systematic metaphysics and epistemology.

In its idea of Rousseau’s modern education, many theorists also uphold Rousseau’s work

including the likes of:

Johann Pestalozzi was a fellow Swiss who had read Emile and put into practice what he

believed he had read. His first school, on his own estate, was created for the poor children of

his employees. It closed after two years. His later success was in the establishment of teacher-

training institutes. Friedrich Froebel, a German, was a student and later an instructor at one of

Pestalozzi’s institutes. He is said to have invented the kindergarten based on his idea of self-

activated play. Count Leo Tolstoy, better known as a Romantic Russian novelist, read Rousseau

as a youth and incorporated his ideas of self-examination and love as self-abnegation into his

novels. He founded a school, also on his own estate, incorporating what he believed were

Rousseau’s ideas on education: that knowledge should be applied in a critical way, grades and

class distinctions should be abolished, and students should learn from experience without

correction. Bronson Alcott, an American, studied Pestalozzi and Froebel, but claimed not to

have read Rousseau. He taught and operated schools in an unorthodox fashion, believing that

children should express their ideas and that adults should listen to them, and that all subjects,

even religion and sex, were appropriate to discuss with children. He was a close associate of

William Torrey Harris, Superintendent of St. Louis, Missouri, schools, and later U.S.

Commissioner of Education, who also founded the St. Louis Philosophical Society to translate,

discuss, and interpret the works of Hegel. John Dewey was the founder of the progressive

movement in American education which contains echoes of Rousseau in its child-centered

pedagogy. He believed that education was life, and school was its laboratory, preparing

students to take an active role in the reformation of society.

 It has been said that Jean-Jacques Rousseau invented childhood. "He made it clear that

the beginning and end of education is not the adult, but the child; the child has his own

interests and lives in his own world, and the values of children are completely different from

those of adults" (Mayer, 1966, p. 257). That the child must always do what the child wants to

do is the basic premise of progressive education, quite correctly attributed to Rousseau.

However, before proceeding in this direction, a caveat is called for:

Rousseau’s full formula is that while the child must always do what he wants to do, he

should want to do only what the tutor wants him to do. Since an uncorrupt will does not rebel

against necessity, and the tutor can manipulate the appearance of necessity, he can determine

the will without sowing the seeds of resentment. He presents natural necessity in palpable form

to the child so that the child lives according to nature prior to understanding it. (Bloom, 1990,

p. 189)

THE AIMS OF EDUCATION

The most basic problem of philosophy of education is that concerning aims: what are

the proper aims and guiding ideals of education? What are the proper criteria for evaluating

educational efforts, institutions, practices, and products? Many aims have been proposed by

philosophers and other educational theorists; they include the cultivation of curiosity and the

disposition to inquire; the fostering of creativity; the production of knowledge and of

knowledgeable students; the enhancement of understanding; the promotion of moral thinking,

feeling, and action; the enlargement of the imagination; the fostering of growth, development,

and self-realization; the fulfillment of potential; the cultivation of “liberally educated” persons;

the overcoming of provincialism and close-mindedness; the development of sound judgment;

the cultivation of docility and obedience to authority; the fostering of autonomy; the

maximization of freedom, happiness, or self-esteem; the development of care, concern, and

related attitudes and dispositions; the fostering of feelings of community, social solidarity,
citizenship, and civic-mindedness; the production of good citizens; the “civilizing” of students;

the protection of students from the deleterious effects of civilization; the development of piety,

religious faith, and spiritual fulfillment; the fostering of ideological purity; the cultivation of

political awareness and action; the integration or balancing of the needs and interests of the

individual student and the larger society; and the fostering of skills and dispositions constitutive

of rationality or critical thinking.

All such proposed aims require careful articulation and defense, and all have been

subjected to sustained criticism. Both contemporary and historical philosophers of education

have devoted themselves, at least in part, to defending a particular conception of the aims of

education or to criticizing the conceptions of others. The great range of aims that have been

proposed makes vivid the philosopher of education’s need to appeal to other areas of

philosophy, to other disciplines (e.g., psychology, anthropology, sociology, and the physical

sciences), and to educational practice itself. Given that consideration of education’s proper

aims is of fundamental importance for the intelligent guidance of educational activities, it is

unfortunate that contemporary discussions of educational policy rarely address the matter.

IDEAS THAT NEED TO BE ADRESSED

The concept of 'modern education' is directly connected with Rousseau's theory of

education. Emile is to grant education’s other side, but if there are no two worlds there can be

no “other side”. Then without the other side –education can no longer be equated with

salvation, whereas what is called “modern education” is bound to secular grace, governors

knowing nature’s route to lead the child without touching sin and evil. Many people confuse

education with knowledge. Education, at least in a country like ours, is when you have a basic

qualification, earn a degree and can accordingly meet the requirements needed to work in a

job. In our country, education is more about elimination than selection. But there is a lot more

to education than just attending school, passing exams, attending university and getting a
degree. Education is a holistic process. It is not just about earning degrees; it is about the values

and life lessons you imbibe in the process. It is about exploring the unknown, and about having

the thirst to learn more than what is required of your exam. It is about hands-on learning.

Education is about gaining practical knowledge and also should equip you to use your

intelligence and capabilities to face real-life situations. Others (B.F. Skinner and Charles Sykes)

have argued that progressive educational thought is overly concerned with ensuring that

students feel good about themselves and are enjoy learning. The net effect of these beliefs is

that educators shield students from distress that might arise from engaging in meaningful

challenges and encountering valuable criticism.

The final contrast that is listed – the idea that learning can and should be pleasurable

and painless – is the main concern in this paper. It is this theme in progressive educational

thought that has given rise to the widely held belief that frustration, confusion, distress and

other painful moments in education inhibit learning. This belief has led to contemporary

classrooms in which students are denied meaningful challenges and deprived of important

educational experiences. The idea that learning can and ought to be effortless and painless has

had a long history in progressive education and I show below that this idea is often traced to

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – with good reason – just as all progressive educational thought can be

understood as his legacy. However, that Rousseau ‘s views on happiness and pain in education

are far more complex than the simplistic ideal of painless and joyful learning that has enthralled

many progressivists. I hope to show that Rousseau ‘s position on educational pain presents a

neglected path in progressive educational thought. Rousseau suggests that educational

theorists ought to concern themselves with identifying and eliminating harmful or useless pains

while encouraging and facilitating students ‘experiences of beneficial ones. I return to this

argument in the final section of the paper.

The reception of Rousseau's work demonstrates the often dramatic and always radical

conflict between convinced supporters and equally convinced adversaries. Rousseau divides his
readers into the twenty-first century, not least because he wrote against reality. His ideals of

antiquity, especially those of Sparta and Athens, suggest an âge d'or (Terasse 1970, Leduc-

Fayette 1974), which can be understood as an anticipation of the future, the renovation of the

‘true society’ that has been lost in history. It is therefore not by chance that Rousseau is the

hero of the Jacobins; his cult was established in the French Revolution (Barny 1986) against all

conservative theories that negate revolution in favor of the long-term development of society

without the sentiment of decadence. Rousseau's Social Contract represents the new society

that conservatives can only deny. The tension between freedom and equality attributed to, and

paradoxically and provocatively described by, Rousseau characterizes one major part of political

theory up to John Rawls's reformulation of the Contract social. The same applies to the theory

of ‘natural education’: Rousseau's Emile is a key source for Tolstoy and the reform movements

of the nineteenth century, a central inspiration for Piaget (Oelkers 1996) and the development

of child psychology, and a milestone for progressive education.

Of central importance are Rousseau's dualisms and thus his language. He stresses

contradictions and paradoxes between nature and society, men and citizens, children and

adults, and, not least, male and female. Even John Dewey, who rejected dualism, accepted that

Rousseau—and only Rousseau—was the founder of the theory of ‘natural development’

(Dewey 1985, 211ff.) as opposed to artificial schooling, and was thus to be read in a dualistic

manner. Educational theorists are irritated by Rousseau, who is regarded as a ‘classical writer’

of education (Rorty 1998) because of the unsolved paradoxes. Rousseau's concept of education

makes no attempt at solving the paradoxes and dilemmas, but leaves them open, thus puzzling

readers with keen contradictions which are right and wrong at the same time. What counts for

Rousseau is not logic but the heart, and this seems to be part of his success. His radical

conclusions seem to be obvious: politics within a new society following the education of ‘new

man’ according to his own true nature. The famous ascription to ‘return to nature,’ which was

part of the nineteenth century's reading of Rousseau and nowhere stated by him directly, was

regarded as the emancipation from alienation, and thus a project of the left. But Rousseau was
at the same time radical and conservative—stating that society should return to the golden age,

education should leave schooling for true nature, man should be first man and then citizen. It is

this rigor without reality that fascinated Rousseau's readers—disciples as well as opponents.

Rousseau's theory of education is provocatively puzzling: ‘negative education’ has no

objective, and nature develops itself. However, the learning process is subject to extreme

regulations (Rorty 1998, p. 248). The present should not be made a victim of the future

(Rousseau 1969, p. 309), but every form of education is a deal with the future, and this is true

for Rousseau's theory too: the ages of childhood and of youth are clearly defined, as are the

phases of education, so nature is not chance but necessity, aiming at the future. Children

should be educated in a manner solely dependent on things (p. 311), yet the governor

dominates the whole of Emile's education. Nature should lead the way (p. 259), but every effort

possible must be made to avoid the first wrong step (p. 317). Children stand like savages

outside the law and are completely natural (p. 320), but education must take everything in

hand so as to exclude chance (p. 342) without being able to act solely on the basis of the

necessity of nature. The first education should be that of the senses alone (p. 380), but that

requires a rational plan of education which cannot simply be drawn from nature. In

consequence Rousseau's educational scene is one of extreme regulation: Emile does not play,

he does not develop anything of his own and is not allowed to listen to music, and his learning

differs in every way from ‘amusement’ (p. 407). According to Rousseau, education should be

‘realistic’ (p. 418) and this is possible only when undertaken in an extremely artificial manner.

Because society is excluded, educational rigor can rule. The basis for this is nature in the sense

of self-love (amour de soi). Self-love is always good and always in compliance with the natural

order (p. 491)—which begs the question why education does not concentrate fully on this

amour de soi.

Rousseau wrote the counterclaim to sensualistic educational theory, which dominated

the pedagogy of the eighteenth century. Children, according to Rousseau, should not be viewed
as empty vessels or tabulae rasa, but instead as parts of nature which develop of their own

accord. Children cannot simply be influenced, and education is not merely the establishment of

habits and customs; moreover, it is the child's nature that limits all education. This fundamental

concept is weakened by the implicit sensualism, the education of the senses (Rousseau 1969,

415ff.) that is necessary because education is inconceivable without any influence. But the

provocation remains, and it defines Rousseau's standing as an educational author. Education is

limited by nature, nature has nothing to do with sin, the child is innocent because of nature's

original goodness, thus education can take place without any of the burdens of history and

society. It is a renewal of mankind with every new child. This is the fundamental basis of

Rousseau's theory, which is still read and discussed today because it provokes and stimulates

educational thought without attempting to solve the puzzles. Rousseau is read today because

he defines the problems, not their solutions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are some good things about progressivism. Progressive educators

seek to motivate the student to take an interest in his or her studies, refusing to rely exclusively

on recitation, memorization, and textbooks. In the 1890s, before progressivism, exclusive

reliance on these methods was standard instructional practice. At the same time, we do know

that students have to master—to learn so that they are automatic—skills in reading, spelling,

and mathematical facts and operations. We know that the need to acquire skills and learn facts

goes beyond the 3-R fundamentals. The need is ongoing—continuing through calculus and

beyond in math and continuing through college-level reading and writing in English.

Rosseau’s work and ideology is remarkable in its sense that it is very useful in terms of

education in the early stages. In regards to higher order of learning, they must accept criticism

and guidance from others. While education tends to push forward in regards to the needs of

the students, while we still hold a candle to past theologist and their works, we must also
adhere to the signs of the times and continue to cultivate them through numerous testing’s and

era defining research and stats. Going back to Philippine setting where many schools, mostly

public schools cater at least 40-60 students in class, can we really apply progressive education?

With many problems such as white man mentality and Elitism, this hinder our society from

receiving progressive education. Many would want this, many would fight for their right, but in

all honesty, it basically is impossible, especially a third world country to receive progressive

education that Rosseau dreamt of, let alone be a catalyst in modern education. Though the idea

seems to work well with what we truly need, but let us state the facts:

1. Naturalistic education is best in early education.

2. We cannot do Progressive education when there are too many students in the

classroom.

3. If progressive education is being pushed, we must relate it to the economic system in

our country to help it bloom further.

4. The economic status is clearly related in this type of education.

5. We must remove Elitism and white man’s mentality for it to strive.

REFERENCE:

Oelkers, J. (2002). Rousseau and the image of'modern education'. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 34(6), 679-698.

Darling, J. (1986). Child‐centred, Gender‐centred: a criticism of progressive curriculum theory

from Rousseau to Plowden. Oxford Review of Education, 12(1), 31-40.

Mintz, A. I. (2012). The happy and suffering student? Rousseau's Emile and the path not taken

in progressive educational thought. Educational Theory, 62(3), 249-265.

Reese, W. J. (2001). The origins of progressive education. History of education quarterly, 41(1),

1-24.

Darling, J. (1986). Child‐centred, Gender‐centred: a criticism of progressive curriculum theory

from Rousseau to Plowden. Oxford Review of Education, 12(1), 31-40.

Kohler III, J. H. (1982). The Confluence of New Left and Old Right Persistent Criticism of

Progressive Education. Educational Theory, 32(1), 1-8.