|
|
======================================================
JEFFERSON'S PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION
>I hope I am not presuming anything by this question, but I am very
>frustrated in a search for information about Thomas Jefferson's
>perspective on education. I have gleaned from my reading about him
that
>he wanted everyone to have an education and had definate ideas
about
>curriculum, but I don't believe that he advocated government control
>over curriculum or compulsory schooling. As I remember, he did
advocate
>the restriction of voting rights or ability to hold public office to
>individuals who could demonstrate skills in reading and writing. Are
>there quotes to support these ideas, or have I just infered them? I
>can't find anything in your (wonderful!) website, though I did find the
>statement he made to Chevalier de Ouis from Spain where he praised
the
>fact that the Spanish Constitution disenfranchised citizens who could
>not read and write.
>
>Thank you for any help you can provide me!
I am always glad to help to the extent I am able, so there is no question
of a "presumption" involved.
There are two chapters of the Jefferson Quotations site that are relevant
to your search:
Educating the People
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1350.htm
Publicly Supported Education
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm
Your note indicates you have read at least one, and possibly both, of
those chapters. I don't really have anything else I can direct you to,
although Jefferson did make some references to education in other
contexts. You should be able to find everything you need on those two
pages, however. The truth is, I am not aware of any statements where
he specifically advocates the restriction of voting rights or ability to hold
public office to individuals who could demonstrate skills in reading and
writing. I have not reviewed the above two chapters in writing this, but if
there was anything that I ran across wherein he recommended such
restrictions, I'm sure I would have included it on those pages
somewhere.
As to government control over curriculum or compulsory schooling, I
think the only safe thing we could say is that he did not discuss those
issues, and we could only speculate as to what positions he might take
today. His comments on the Spanish constitution would lead us to
assume that he certainly approved of the measures contained therein,
though he never specifically proposed the same measures in this
country. Spain probably had many more illiterate people than America
at that time, and I suspect that Jefferson felt the measure was not really
necessary in this country for that reason. Therefore, it was not an
important issue for us and was not addressed.
I have another website, The Jeffersonian Perspective, that has essays
that seek to project Jeffersonian ideas onto the problems of today.
There are several essays that address education issues, though maybe
not exactly what you are looking for. These are:
Education and Discipline
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco05.htm
Education Elitism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco11.htm
The People & the Intellectual Elite
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco38.htm
Teaching History: Keepers of the Flame
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco54.htm
I am sorry I can't be of more help. As regards the two issues you
mentioned specifically, I suspect that Jefferson would probably approve
some STATE OR LOCAL minimum standards for curriculum if the
purpose was clearly an improvement of educational opportunities.
Similarly, he might well support compulsory schooling, just as he would
forbid suffrage to illiterates in Spain, if he thought that parents refusing
to see to the free education of their children was a substantial problem.
After all, he could not see how a government of the people could survive
if the people remained in ignorance. These being internal matters,
however, in no case would he have the National government involved.
Nevertheless, Jefferson did NOT say "that government is best which
governs least," and he generally allowed suficient leeway for a
government to be whatever the will of the people wanted it to be.
I hope that helps. If you have any further questions, or if you would like
more information on any of these issues, write back, and I will try to
expand on the above.
Best wishes,
Eyler Coates
> After reading your essay on Educational Elitism, I feel inclined to
> respond. You note, and I agree, that Jefferson favored the education
> of the masses. You say, "Jefferson certainly wished to see the talents
> of the gifted given full opportunity to be realized. But to put this in
> terms of an invidious comparison with those 'unequal' because of lesser
> talent is especially un-Jeffersonian." You go on to say, "Notice, his
> interest was in an appropriate education for EVERYONE."
>
> I still agree. However, as an educator, I must dispute your idea of
> what is appropriate for everyone. It is essential that we meet the
> learning needs of each individual. This is virtually impossible without
> differentiation in the classroom. To provide an appropriate education
> for everyone means to challenge everyone to perform at the highest level
> at which they are capable of performing. Because those levels
> inevitably vary from student to student, educators need to provide a
> variety of educational opportunities based on the needs of their
> students. It is as unfair to expect students who excel academically to
> work at a level that does not challenge them as it is to expect students
> who perform at an average level to work at a level that is beyond their
> capacity. In both instances we do a disservice to children, in one case
> by not expecting of them all that they can give, and in the other, by
> expecting far more than they are capable of giving.
>
> Providing for the needs of the individual is by no means creating an
> unequal learning environment; in fact, it is the only way to guarantee
> equality of opportunity.
>
> This in my opinion embodies what Jefferson was saying to P. Carr:
> "It is highly interesting to our country, and the duty of its
> functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an
> education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life."
> 'Proportioned' means differentiated.
I find myself in almost complete agreement with what you say. I think
the only point of possible disagreement might be in the interpretation
of "proportioned" and "differentiated." When Jefferson spoke of
"education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life,"
there is no doubt that he was referring to the *extent* of the student's
education, i.e., whether his formal schooling ends after basic or
primary education, or whether the student goes on to college and
advanced training. This interpretation he makes plain in other writings
in which he outlines his proposal for a complete education system, from
primary school through university, and especially his proposal for
state-supported education for the talented who could not afford the
higher levels. In other words, he was really talking about the student's
*continuance* in school.
This is not at all to say that he was opposed to specialized
opportunities for gifted students at any given level. He just did not
address that issue. In fact, it could very well be assumed that he
would take that form of "differentiation" for granted. As you know,
most of the primary schools of his time were the old "one-room school
house." While unthinkable today, it nevertheless demanded a more or
less individualized approach to each and every student, since the class
consisted of students at a variety of levels.
Assuming that there should be some kind of appropriate differentiation
at every given level of education, the real question becomes, What
form should that differentiation take? Through most of our history,
specially talented students sometimes skipped grades or participated
in special projects. Some even helped in the tutoring of younger
children. All of this seems appropriate to me, and would not at all
be contrary to the spirit of Jefferson's ideas. I can't imagine him
being anything other than fully supportive of such special attention.
It is all a matter of the individual teacher's responsibility for
recognizing these particular needs, and the development, on an ad hoc
basis, of techniques for dealing with the situation. As you suggest,
*all* students vary from one to another, and a skillful teacher takes
that into account in making schoolwork a challenge for each student
in the classroom--no mean feat, by the way.
I think we are on far less sure grounds when we consider Tracking and
special, separate classes for the gifted, especially if these are part
of public education. A first reaction is that this approach is
undemocratic. Whatever its administrative advantages, it fosters a
class-sense that is inappropriate in a democratic republic. Moreover,
students become well aware of their classification and that higher
authorities have passed sentence on them. The teaching in the "dumb"
sections is invariably inferior to that in the "smart" sections, and
the "dumb" students are further deprived of positive educational
influences by being denied meaningful contact with the "smart kids"
and the examples that they set. While the come-back to that might be
that the dumb ones are not made to feel inferior in the presence of
the smart ones, that is just argumentation. In every walk of life,
people must deal with the fact that there are others, some of which
are more talented, and some less. Although my short essay did not
go into "tracking" (but probably should have), I think that form of
differentiation is detrimental to all. It should also be noted that
this form of differentiation does not solve the problem of individual
differences in students. Even when so classified, students within
each track will still differ from others in the same track.
Students who are unequal in their talents are not unequal in their
rights. If education is viewed as a necessity in a free society
(and it most certainly is), then each student should receive an
education appropriate to "the condition and pursuits of his life."
And that appropriateness, proportion, or differentiation, should
accomodate his individual needs, and not be the occasion for a
better treatment of one individual to the detriment of another.
That is the point I was trying to make.
"To provide an appropriate education
for everyone means to challenge everyone to perform at the highest level
at which they are capable of performing. Because those levels
inevitably vary from student to student, educators need to provide a
variety of educational opportunities based on the needs of their
students. It is as unfair to expect students who excel academically to
work at a level that does not challenge them as it is to expect students
who perform at an average level to work at a level that is beyond their
capacity. In both instances we do a disservice to children, in one case
by not expecting of them all that they can give, and in the other, by
expecting far more than they are capable of giving. Providing for the
needs of the individual is by no means creating an
unequal learning environment; in fact, it is the only way to guarantee
equality of opportunity. This in my opinion embodies what Jefferson was
saying to P. Carr:
'It is highly interesting to our country, and the duty of its
functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an
education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life.'
'Proportioned' means differentiated."