Reconstructionism
Pragmatic Roots
Reconstuctionism in not a fully developed philosophy of life or of education. Many
writers view it as only an extension of progressivism, the educational philosophy. Like
progressivism, it is based on the “pure” philosophy of pragmatism. Therefore, its answers to
basic questions are the same. In answer to the ontological question of what is real,
reconstructionists agree that everyday, personal experience constitutes reality. The
epistemological question asks: “What is truth and how do we know truth”? The reconstructionist
claims that truth is what works, and we arrive at truth through a process of trial and error. The
axiological question asks: “What is good and beautiful”? The reconstructionist’s answer to this
is whatever the public consensus says it is!
Educational Theory
As far as his educational views are concerned, the reconstructionist sees things the same
way as the progressive—up to a point. For example, reconstructionists believe that students
learn more, remember it longer, and apply it to new situations better if they learn through
experience, rather than through being told something.
As they see it, the teacher’s main role is that of a resource person or a research project
director who guides the students’ learning rather than being a dispenser of knowledge. In this
role, the teacher carries on a dialogue with students, helping them identify problems, frame
hypotheses, find data, draw appropriate conclusions, and select efficacious courses of action
(praxis).
Reconstructionists don’t believe in a predetermined curriculum. They would use the
subject matter from any or all disciplines when needed to solve a problem. They would probably
deal more, however, with the subject matter of social experience (the social sciences) in solving
problems.
The teaching methods favored by reconstructionists are (1) the pupil-teacher dialogue and
(2) praxis. Praxis is “effective action.” In other words, reconstructionists favor applying the
problem-solving method (scientific method) of the progressives to real-life problems. After one
has reached an “intellectual solution” to a problem, reconstructionists favor carefully thought-out
social action to remedy or ameliorate the problem.
Reconstructionists, like progressives, do not favor any type of ability grouping. They feel
students should be grouped only upon the basis of common interests.
Reconstructionists also like flexible student seating arrangements, but since there is so
much involvement outside the classroom, seating is not even an issue.
Reconstructionists share the progressive’s view of student discipline. Moreover, they
feel that if students are actively involved in bringing about change in areas that concern them,
they will not become frustrated, and therefore, will not be likely to become discipline problems.
Reconstructionists prefer to evaluate students subjectively on the basis of their ability as a
social activist rather than give written examinations. Like progressives, they feel that student
self-evaluation has a proper place.
Reconstructionists’ Platform
Reconstructionists differ significantly from progressives in the matter of social policy.
Progressives acknowledge the rapidly changing conditions around us. But they are content to
just teach students how to cope with change. It has been said that progressives seek to teach
students how to reach “intellectual solution” to problems. This often culminates in writing a
paper, doing a report or a project of some kind. This kind of education would tend to “mirror the
contemporary society.” On the other hand, reconstructionists believe that students must learn
through practical experience how to direct change and control it. They believe strongly that our
culture is in crisis. They believe that things will get uncontrollably bad unless we intervene to
direct change and thereby reconstruct the social order.
Reconstructionsists believe that a “ Utopian Future” is a genuine possibility for mankind
if we learn how to intervene and to direct change. They believe that the school should train
students to be social activists in the tradition of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Nader
and Jesse Jackson.
Reconstructionists believe that we should apply the reflective inquiry method to life’s
problems. They feel, however, that we should be prepared to act upon our conclusions. This
requires a sense of commitment and responsibility on the part of students. This goal of initiating
change is of course very controversial. For this reason, reconstructionism has never caught on
fully in our schools. Questions have been raised concerning whether or not schools should
become a tool for re-making society. Questions have also been raised as to whether students at
any age have the intellectual and social maturity to participate in social action.
Advocates of social action contend that the more involvement we have, the better off we
will be as a society. They claim that as things stand now, only a small percentage of people get
involved in social issues because they do not know how to do so. Advocates of social action
emphasize that it can be safely practiced if certain common-sense “safeguards” are applied. For
example:
1) Young students should be encouraged to act in a more limited setting than older
students, such as the classroom or school, rather than the larger community.
2) Teachers should help students weigh the probable outcomes of various lines of social
action before anything is done. They should consider whether or not a given action
will solve or ameliorate a problem. Moreover, they should consider the probable
“side effects” of a given line of action, including how it will impact on significant
others.
3) Teachers should work with students to get them to accept the consequences (good or
bad) of their actions, once they have taken place, without complaining or expecting to
be let off the hook. This is important if a sense of commitment and responsibility is
to be nurtured.
References
Dialogue in the Philosophy of Education by Howard Ozman
Philosophy and the American School by Van Cleve Morris
Contemporary Theories of Education by Richard Pratte