Chattanooga's Paideia Schools: A Single Track for All--And It's Working

Abstract

One of first reports on public education appearing in 1980s was The Paideia Proposal, a slim volume written by Mortimer Adler (1982) representing 22 educators and academics called The Paideia Group. Unlike many of more utilitarian reports later released under aegis of official commissions, The Paideia Proposal was a statement of philosophy, at once a vision of human beings as destined for and an explication of how public schools in a democratic society ought to help all citizens realize this vision.In his essay, Adler laid out The Paideia Group's view of education for citizenship, work, and lifelong in a democracy. Arguing that democracy requires not simply same quantity but same quality of schooling for all, he outlined three of learning or ways of acquiring knowledge, developing skills, and deepening understanding of ideas and values: didactic instruction, individualized coaching, and Socratic discussion. He further maintained that teachers should do more than simply purvey facts, but should engage students' by inviting and entertaining questions, by encouraging and sustaining inquiry, by supervising helpfully a wide variety of exercises and drills, by leading discussions, by giving examinations that arouse constructive responses, not just making of check marks on printed forms (p. 50). Adler contended that educators must be learners themselves, for the teacher who has stopped is a deadening influence rather than a help to students being initiated into ways of learning (p. 59). Likewise, principal must be first and foremost head teacher, an educational leader rather than solely an administrator.The Paieia Proposal was nothing if not controversial. At annual conference of Midwest Philosophy of Education Society (1983) and in pages of Harvard Educational Review, academics and practitioners heatedly critiqued proposal's merits and shortcomings. Some (Cahn, 1983; McAninch, 1983; Ravitch, 1983; Smith, 1983) accepted, even cheered, Paideia, albeit with reservations. These and others (Berry, 1983; Smith & Traver, 1983) viewed proposal as a welcome attempt, however imperfect, to reconcile tension between values of equity and excellence in education.Many, however, expressed strong disagreement with Adler based on views that Paideia was elitist, narrow, or impractical. Perhaps most serious charges came out of interpretations of proposal as advocating a rarefied education that reinforced status quo and had little relevance to underrepresented groups. Stickel (1983) and Burns (1983), for example, argued that Adler's ideas represented imposition of an outmoded methodology on a pluralistic world and would not foster students' thinking about what their lives might be beyond what had already been determined for them. As Stickel specifically warned, Sexism, prejudice, and ethnocentricity are easily perpetuated in a fixed curriculum (p. 29). McKenzie (1983) forcefully challenged Adler's contention that education provided most eager students should be provided to all, asserting, This belief, that what is best for best is best for all, is a dangerously elitist tenet which may destroy potential of countless young minds (p. 391). Carnoy (1983) noted that failure to include ordinary citizens in formulating Paideia was seriously at odds with stated commitment of writers to democracy. As he chided, Appeals that ask [citizens] to regard their education as an end in itself can only be made by those who sit in ivory towers and are paid well to do so (p. 402).Closely allied with these critics were others who viewed course of study suggested by Adler as simply too narrow for modern world and too inflexible for diversity of students in public schools. For example, Swartz (1983) argued that three columns of represented a standardization and uniformity of that would impede human growth and development. …