Humanist Theory

-Major proponents include E.D. Hirsch and Chester Finn

It wouldn’t be uncommon to hear others describe the Humanist tradition as a “back to basics” approach in casual conversation. This is most likely due to the modest amount of attention received by E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Series that became a part of popular culture in the 1990’s. Yet, after reading the works of Chester Finn and E.D. Hirsch, it quickly becomes apparent that the theory the Humanists prescribe to is much more complex than simply demanding a more “basic” curriculum. In his article, A Call for Quality Education, Chester Finn paints a scary portrait of the state of American education and then provides a dozen prescriptions that can serves as remedies to our ill system. Similarly, E.D. Hirsch makes his own diagnosis of American education in his article, Restoring Cultural Literacy in the Early Grades, but defines the problem with American education slightly differently. Hirsch argues that what is missing in our system is a common cultural literacy that should be the primary purpose of schooling. And in order to establish this cultural literacy, he argues that we must reanalyze and distance ourselves from three common slogans about becoming literate.

Although Finn exposes flaw after flaw in our educational system, it is his fundamental belief that “there is nothing wrong with the American education system that can’t be fixed.” His 12 prescriptions are as follows:

1. Promote for Achievement

2. Let the Educators Decide the Curriculum

3. There Must be Testing

4. Students Do Differ

5. Discipline is Necessary

6. Celebrate Excellence

7. Reward Good Teachers

8. Homework Has a Purpose

9. Schools Should Educate

10. Reduce Federal Control

11. Encourage Pluralism

12. Set Reasonable Goals

I will briefly discuss the prescriptions which call for explanations and discuss the common themes that surface across the prescriptions. Finn places, “Promote for Achievement” on the top of his list for good reason. In this article and his article, Can the Schools Be Saved?, Finn insists that we, as a nation, must put an end to social promotion by acknowledging that “being rigorous does not mean being cruel.” We must be willing to accept that children will fail if we demand mastery of a body of knowledge, and at the same time, be unwilling to accept this failure and make sure students who struggle are afforded multiple opportunities to succeed. This idea surfaces again under the prescription of “Students Do Differ.” Finn explains that our hesitance to admit different abilities of children and respond accordingly creates a system that fosters a uniform education that really won’t provide a quality education to anyone. Other noteworthy ideas brought forth by Finn include the notion of creating a “master teacher,” the idea that the federal government can do little to improve education and much to destroy it, and that our children can handle heavier homework demands.

E.D. Hirsch proposes that we as a society have come to accept slogans about obtaining literacy that must be reexamined, for they undermine the teaching of a necessary traditional knowledge to our children. The three slogans are as follows:

1. The home is more decisive for literacy than the school.

2. Schools should stress general skills and broad understanding, not mere facts.

3. Optimal contents of a language arts curriculum can be determined on scientific principles.

In his criticism of the first slogan, Hirsch cites the Coleman Report of 1966 as creating an axiomatic feeling that socioeconomic status is an unmovable, decisive force in predicting academic performance. However, Hirsch notes that the Coleman Report fails to prove that success based on socioeconomic status is inherent or inevitable, and furthermore, that it is futile to seek a way to reverse this relationship. In rebuttal to the ardent supporters of the Coleman Report, Hirsch demonstrates that the education system produced a literate culture in both the 19^th and 20^th century through the teaching of common, traditional materials.

In his third criticism, Hirsch seeks to ensure that science should merely help serve the goals of education rather than set the goals of education. However, the core of Hirsch’s argument centers on the second slogan. Ultimately, Hirsch hopes to see trend of looking down upon the acquisition of facts and rote memorization reversed. For it is his premise that the acquisition of core knowledge is not only necessary to obtain higher order skills but it is also a sort of social glue and social equalizer that allows disadvantaged students to obtain a much needed common cultural literacy that they otherwise would not be able to obtain at home. Put simply, there are both technical and social implications of restoring a common cultural literacy.