Educationist, Reformer and Philosopher
Hartmut von Hentig, one of Germany's best-known educational philosophers, was kind enough to answer five questions put to him in correspondence with the Goethe-Institut. His responses form the basis for this interview. He admits: "I have rather mangled your questions, but in my view, this makes for more interesting reading and reveals something of my educational philosophy." As the reader will see from the following interview, we have to agree with him, and we are most grateful to Professor von Hentig for his very detailed and carefully thought-out answers. Teachers and educators at your Laboratory School take a Socratic Oath: they pledge always to respect and protect children and prepare them gently but successfully for life. The final declaration which everyone makes is that they will "resist persons and conditions, collective interests and official instructions" which seek to impede this educational process. What is the background to this appeal for disobedience, which sits nicely with the idealistic social critique of 1968 but less so, perhaps, with the German school system?
I have never been able to fathom where this widespread belief that the teachers at the Bielefeld Laboratory School have all sworn a kind of "Socratic Oath", supposedly devised by me, comes from. No one, apart from me, has taken an oath; in fact, I suspect that very few teachers at the Laboratory School are even aware of its existence. I wrote the oath for the final issue of a German teachers' newspaper which survived for two years after the demise of the German Democratic Republic. After the collapse of the regime, the teachers in the GDR – just like their counterparts under National Socialism – asked themselves what could have been done to protect them from their own submissiveness in their professional lives. The educational beliefs which underlie my philosophy demand that teachers be given support to resist false instructions, abuse, cowardice and self-deception. The newspaper Die Zeit reprinted the text on 19 September 1991 – together with its explanatory memorandum, which starts with the premise that in a secular world, any oath is intrinsically weak, so this particular oath is to be viewed as a voluntary commitment. Ultimately, it is up to every individual to create and honour their personal oath. In doing so, "they should consider whether this is really what they want. If it isn't, they should leave it alone. If it is what they want, they can hope that the oath will give them strength in their hour of need." That is what the introduction says, and you can read it in my book Die Schule neu denken [i.e. Rethinking School] published in 1993. So it is not "an appeal for disobedience which sits nicely with the idealistic social critique of 1968"; it is the legacy of an old man who has developed a set of guidelines for difficult times. And even in those difficult times, the most important element is what precedes the clause which you have just quoted in your question, which states: " … I pledge to justify my beliefs and actions publicly and to accept criticism, especially from those whom my beliefs and actions affect, and from my professional colleagues."
It is true that what I am conveying here sits neatly with 1968 in that it demonstrates how, when viewed after the event, perceptions and reality, judgment and prejudice, and normative and historical analyses shift, become blurred and overlap, and how useful it is to separate them. The fact is that teaching racial doctrine and class struggle was once part of German teachers' "official duties"; "collective interests" prompts teachers to campaign for half-day schooling; and "conditions" require teachers to grade pupils using a number-based marking system – all of which conflicts with my educational principles and with others' as well.
How would you describe the educational philosophy of the 1968 generation? What were its core hypotheses, and what do you think of them?
A single educational philosophy – and indeed a single 1968 movement – did not exist. 1968 was primarily a student movement which criticised just about everything and everyone who – for example in universities where lecturers still wore gowns – resisted moves to inject a breath of fresh air or introduce a new approach to learning, or challenge conventional wisdoms, or encourage rapid change. The movement targeted repressive sexual mores, a civil-service-based democracy, the failure to acknowledge German war guilt, Germany's bloc- and alliance-based policies, the Springer press, and, in the widest sense, colonialism and imperialism, which were unleashing the student protests in America and France at the same time. Naturally, the most conservative institutions in our society – schools –– were not exempt from this process. The conceit, entrenched thinking and hierarchical structure of the German education system were attacked with such force that the bourgeoisie – the "educated" middle class – was alarmed. They forget that everything that the student and schoolchildren's movements were demanding dated back to long before the movements themselves existed. Anti-authoritarian education, for example, had long been propounded by Berthold Otto and Alexander Neill, while compulsory education for all was the focus of the "common school" in the USA and the flexible schooling advocated by Paul Oestreich. A case for early sexual education and sexual emancipation had been made in the Scandinavian countries and by Gustav Wyneken, and for codetermination and decision-making by schoolchildren by Paul Geheeb and Janusz Korczak. In the 1960s, all these theories found new champions and drew on new sources of inspiration: from Theodor W. Adorno's studies on The Authoritarian Personality (as early as 1944!), for example, or Paul Goodman's analysis of school as a place of conformism and appeasement (Growing Up Absurd, 1956) and his compelling critique of Compulsory Mis-Education (1962), which lambasts the system of compulsory education to the end of high school as well as the content of college education. Others include Alexander Mitscherlich's revealing picture of the consequences of anonymisation, depersonalisation and conformism in Die vaterlose Gesellschaft (1963) (published in English as Society without the Father), The Kinsey Report (1948 and 1963), Alex Comfort's plea for a less repressive and more enlightened attitude to sexuality (in Sex and Society, 1963), Michael Young's critique of meritocracy and its social consequences (1958), Basil Bernstein's studies on class-specific language codes (from 1958), Ralf Dahrendorf's revelations about the striking inequality of opportunity that is promoted, rather than being mitigated, by the German education system (Arbeiterkinder an deutschen Universitäten [i.e. Working Class Children at German Universities] and Bildung ist Bürgerrecht [i.e. Education as a Civil Right], both 1965), and his distinction between public and private virtues (1965). Other inspirational works were Georg Picht's description of the German education system as being in a "state of emergency" (1962-1964), Jerome Bruner's liberal response to the alarm generated by the Sputnik launch (The Process of Education, 1959) – Bruner argued that the answer was to create better curricula (1964) – and British and American research on the development of intelligence, which served as the starting point for the work of the subcommittee of the Education Commission of the German Education Council, with the working title Begabung, Begabungsförderung und Begabungsauslese [i.e. Talent, its Promotion and Selection], which culminated in the publication of the cult work of 1968: Begabung und Lernen [Talent and Learning]. A revolution was taking place: the social and political climate was changing under a transatlantic tidal wave of dissatisfaction, and bobbing along on its surface was the 1968 movement.
Wherever Social Democrats were in government – in Hesse or Berlin, Bremen or North Rhine-Westphalia – institutions such as the comprehensive school or the "college level" (after the 11th grade) were established, with necessarily new but wildly ambitious and needlessly elaborate curricula triggering lengthy and spectacular controversy. The German Education Council was set up in 1965 and gave these often outrageous reform concepts a measure of proportion and respect. Outside the public school sector, communes set up children's nurseries at first and then day care facilities and independent schools. By the late 1970s, some of these more viable innovations – comprehensive schools, codetermination, a "democratic" (i.e. neither authoritarian nor laisser faire) style of teaching, project- and assignment-based tuition, social science and sex education – had become commonplace. It is difficult to say how much of this can be attributed to, or indeed blamed on, the 1968 generation. Nonetheless, if there is a stereotypical "1968" teacher, he can generally be distinguished by his studied lack of formality in manner and speech, even with students, his distinct enthusiasm for public protests, and his luxuriant hair growth and beard – as well as his mistrust of "classical and traditional education", his commitment to the principle of equality, and his outright rejection of "paternalism", "privatism", and "scientism".
Since you have specifically asked me about this, let me say that I remain committed to the principle of enlightened learning, as well as to scientific principles, the critique of ideologies, and the fostering of peaceful conflict management skills. I counted myself as part of the 1968 generation as long as it also adhered to these principles. Violence in any form – occupation of offices and apartments, disruption of lectures and panel discussions, hurling cobblestones and causing "damage to property" – was anathema to me, however. On the other hand, I reject the argument that the 1968 generation is to blame for "moral decay", the lack of structure and poor performance of our schools, the decline of our universities, and the growing barbarism in our society. We need to look elsewhere for the culprits and causes, and I can certainly identify them for you!
You are regarded as the pioneer of education reform in the 1960s and 1970s. How much influence did you have? How satisfied are you, and were you, with these reforms?
Judging by trends in German education over the last ten years – since the 1997 TIMMS Study – I would have to say that the influence of the educational philosophy which I propounded, and the reform proposals and mechanisms associated with it, is very limited. Admittedly, there are many faculties and individual teachers who are trying to implement the four most important features of a Hentig school: that it is a "polis" – in other words, a living and learning community; that it replaces as much formal tuition as possible with participation, experience and independent work by students; that it focusses on the possibilities, talents and needs of every child and sees diversity as an advantage; and that it gives every child as much time as he or she needs to learn. However, the majority of school administrations, education policy-makers and the organised public are moving in a different direction. They want fixed timescales and targets for learning (standards), regular performance assessments, early allocation of children to various hierarchically structured types of school, and greater efficiency through compliance with specific teaching methods.
Wherever Social Democrats were in government – in Hesse or Berlin, Bremen or North Rhine-Westphalia – institutions such as the comprehensive school or the "college level" (after the 11th grade) were established, with necessarily new but wildly ambitious and needlessly elaborate curricula triggering lengthy and spectacular controversy. The German Education Council was set up in 1965 and gave these often outrageous reform concepts a measure of proportion and respect. Outside the public school sector, communes set up children's nurseries at first and then day care facilities and independent schools. By the late 1970s, some of these more viable innovations – comprehensive schools, codetermination, a "democratic" (i.e. neither authoritarian nor laisser faire) style of teaching, project- and assignment-based tuition, social science and sex education – had become commonplace. It is difficult to say how much of this can be attributed to, or indeed blamed on, the 1968 generation. Nonetheless, if there is a stereotypical "1968" teacher, he can generally be distinguished by his studied lack of formality in manner and speech, even with students, his distinct enthusiasm for public protests, and his luxuriant hair growth and beard – as well as his mistrust of "classical and traditional education", his commitment to the principle of equality, and his outright rejection of "paternalism", "privatism", and "scientism".
Since you have specifically asked me about this, let me say that I remain committed to the principle of enlightened learning, as well as to scientific principles, the critique of ideologies, and the fostering of peaceful conflict management skills. I counted myself as part of the 1968 generation as long as it also adhered to these principles. Violence in any form – occupation of offices and apartments, disruption of lectures and panel discussions, hurling cobblestones and causing "damage to property" – was anathema to me, however. On the other hand, I reject the argument that the 1968 generation is to blame for "moral decay", the lack of structure and poor performance of our schools, the decline of our universities, and the growing barbarism in our society. We need to look elsewhere for the culprits and causes, and I can certainly identify them for you!
You are regarded as the pioneer of education reform in the 1960s and 1970s. How much influence did you have? How satisfied are you, and were you, with these reforms?
Judging by trends in German education over the last ten years – since the 1997 TIMMS Study – I would have to say that the influence of the educational philosophy which I propounded, and the reform proposals and mechanisms associated with it, is very limited. Admittedly, there are many faculties and individual teachers who are trying to implement the four most important features of a Hentig school: that it is a "polis" – in other words, a living and learning community; that it replaces as much formal tuition as possible with participation, experience and independent work by students; that it focusses on the possibilities, talents and needs of every child and sees diversity as an advantage; and that it gives every child as much time as he or she needs to learn. However, the majority of school administrations, education policy-makers and the organised public are moving in a different direction. They want fixed timescales and targets for learning (standards), regular performance assessments, early allocation of children to various hierarchically structured types of school, and greater efficiency through compliance with specific teaching methods.
I predict a backlash to this trend within five to ten years. I hope that by the time this finally happens, there will still be some schools left where the teachers adhere to a genuine and holistic philosophy of education.
How would you describe Germany's schools? How closely do they approximate your ideal of a "polis" in which teachers and students share responsibility on an equal basis?
Describing Germany's schools is an extremely complex task and I cannot address it here. If it is about attaching a label, you need to ask someone else. I can tell you what they are not: they are not "bad", in terms of a low ranking in the international league tables. However, their overall performance cannot be encapsulated in comparative studies; at best, these studies merely show what our schools are achieving, or failing to achieve, in one specific area or another. The point is that due to their remit, curriculum and teacher training, they have very limited capacity to provide every child with the skills he or she will need in life. In other words, they are not performing the guidance and pastoral role which accompanies their educational function. Above all, they are rarely equipped to educate children from non-German backgrounds successfully. They are not what John Dewey prescribed or described the American school as being, namely an "embryonic society", and they certainly are not a "polis" in which the problems of a learning community are experienced and solutions tested in a learning process. The notion of equal and shared responsibility between teachers and students can only be demanded in relation to this function of a school. In a conventional school, where the focus is on straightforward tuition, the responsibilities of teachers and students diverge considerably from this.
Describing Germany's schools is an extremely complex task and I cannot address it here. If it is about attaching a label, you need to ask someone else. I can tell you what they are not: they are not "bad", in terms of a low ranking in the international league tables. However, their overall performance cannot be encapsulated in comparative studies; at best, these studies merely show what our schools are achieving, or failing to achieve, in one specific area or another. The point is that due to their remit, curriculum and teacher training, they have very limited capacity to provide every child with the skills he or she will need in life. In other words, they are not performing the guidance and pastoral role which accompanies their educational function. Above all, they are rarely equipped to educate children from non-German backgrounds successfully. They are not what John Dewey prescribed or described the American school as being, namely an "embryonic society", and they certainly are not a "polis" in which the problems of a learning community are experienced and solutions tested in a learning process. The notion of equal and shared responsibility between teachers and students can only be demanded in relation to this function of a school. In a conventional school, where the focus is on straightforward tuition, the responsibilities of teachers and students diverge considerably from this.
What would be your dearest wish for Germany's children and their educators? What can parents, educationists and teachers do better?
I wish they could fall into a deep sleep from which they wake up having forgotten everything they ever learned about conventional methods of managing – or enduring – school. I would say to teachers: "Look, now you can get on with your real task of helping children to grow, equipping them with skills for life, enabling them to evolve into the person they are and can become. You don't need to teach the children anything that you regard as unimportant or irrelevant, or anything that you can't do well yourself." And I would say to the children: "This is a learning space which has been devised and created especially for you; you can shape it and look after it; it is a place where people will listen to you and take you seriously, and it is a place where children and teachers form a community where everyone is important and where you can play a part and contribute to what is being done." And if they ask me: "What sort of community, and what shall we do?" I'd say, "Your teachers are here to help you work that out!"
Parents, educationists and teacher can do much better – but nothing will improve simply by politicians' say-so, and nor can things improve unless people experience better alternatives for themselves. What we will need in future are many more experimental schools to act as "laboratories" for this process.
Parents, educationists and teacher can do much better – but nothing will improve simply by politicians' say-so, and nor can things improve unless people experience better alternatives for themselves. What we will need in future are many more experimental schools to act as "laboratories" for this process.
0 comments:
Post a Comment