Chapter Four

The Two Educations

In an earlier chapter it was suggested that there are two models of education in the same way as there are two sociologies: ‘education from above’ is a model that demonstrated that education is functional to the social system so that the individual is moulded to fit his niche in society through the educational process, whereas ‘education of equals’ assumes that the individual is free, able to develop and fulfil his own potential and able to create a truly human social order as a result of his new-found knowledge, skills and ability. These two educations presuppose two distinctive types of curriculum which are perhaps best represented by the discussions about classical and romantic curricula in initial education. Therefore the first section of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of these two types of curricula and of their application to the curriculum theory of adult education. The second part continues this discussion and relates it quite specifically to the two educations. The penultimate section relates this theory to the writings of Knowles (1970, 1980) and especially to his discussion about andragogy and pedagogy. The final section analyzes why andragogy and the romantic curriculum appeared when they did.

Classical and Romantic Curricula

Lawton (1973:22–24) produced three formulations of the distinction between these two types of curriculum and these are summarised below in order to demonstrate the relation between the earlier discussion and these two traditional models of the curriculum.

Few, if any educationalists, would claim that children’s education actually occurs at one end of the continuum or the other; it would be generally agreed that these do form polar types and that it would be quite possible to locate schools/colleges/classes somewhere along each continuum, with a certain degree of consistency occurring. It may be noted from the above that Lawton’s work refers totally to initial education and to the education of children. At the same time, it is not too difficult to see how these two models of curriculum relate to the two forms of education that have been discussed previously. Before this perspective is applied specifically to the ‘two educations’, it is important to recognise that Griffin (1978) undertook an analysis of continuing and recurrent education from the perspective of classical and romantic curricula. A summary of his argument was reproduced by Jarvis (1983b:226–228) and this is reproduced below.

While this analysis is insightful in many ways there is occasional confusion of categories that make it less useful than it might otherwise have been. In addition, his restriction to the distinctions between continuing and recurrent education without reference to other forms of the education of adults also restricts it. However, Griffin (1978:7) himself only regarded his work as a tentative exercise and as such it was a significant step in the development of curriculum theory in the education of adults. His analysis, consequently, forms the bridge between Lawton’s work and the following analysis of the two educations.

The ‘Two Educations’

The two educations are models of education having entirely different ideological perspectives and as Lawton (1973:23) points out since the list of distinctions between the classical and romantic curricula ‘could be added to almost indefinitely’ the following list endeavours to capture some of these ideological differences.

Thus it may be seen from the above table that the two educations are diametrically opposed: ‘education from above’ assumes a classical curriculum form whereas ‘education of equals’ reflects the romantic curriculum. In the former, the emphasis is upon the social system and the individual is prepared to fit into it; education is a kind of initiation into society, rather than an extension of socialization: in the latter, the emphasis is placed upon the individual and his ability to achieve his potential so that he can act as an agent in society. Many of these points will be elaborated upon in subsequent chapters in this section so that further discussion will be deferred. Even so, it may be seen that ‘education from above’ is functional to the social system so that there is an inherent conservatism within it that allows for it to be criticised by radical educationalists. By contract, ‘education of equals’ has a more liberal perspective in as much as the individual is regarded as free and able to achieve his full potential. However, many liberals (e.g. Lawson 1982, Paterson 1984) would want to argue that liberal adult education can embrace the content and, perhaps, the methods of ‘education from above’ which produces a more conservative perspective to liberal adult education than that assumed by those who would ascribe to the majority of the tenets in the ‘education of equals’ column.

The methods and content elements of the ‘education of equals’ has been espoused by many adult educators, especially those having a humanistic perspective (e.g. Rogers 1969). Knowles’ (1983) discussion of andragogy also reflects the perspective and it has been embraced by many adult educators as a valid theory of adult education. Nonetheless, a number of its weaknesses have been highlighted by a variety of writers in the United Kingdom and the United States (see, for instance, Elias 1979, Day and Baskett 1982, Hartree 1984). Day and Baskett (1982:150), for instance, claim that it is an educational ideology rooted in an enquiry-based learning and teaching paradigm -and should be recognised as such’. Whatever the weaknesses of the formulation, the significance of the concept is such that it cannot be neglected. However, theorists frequently discuss Knowles’ analysis of andragogy apart from his description of pedagogy, which is a mistake since only when the two are discussed together may it be seen that Knowles was actually formulating a curriculum theory for adult education.

Andragogy and Pedagogy

Knowles (1980:43–4) focuses upon four assumptions when he compares andragogy and pedagogy and these are summarised in Table 4.4.

By comparing these two tables, it is possible to see that Knowles is actually using the term ‘pedagogy’to refer to the classical curriculum and ‘andragogy’ to refer to the romantic curriculum. Perhaps, even more significantly, in the light of the position adopted in the text, for Knowles ‘education from above’ is pedagogy, while ‘education of equals’ is andragogy. There may be many reasons why Knowles failed to formulate this distinction in curriculum terms, including the fact that this own ideological perspective would lead him to focus upon the learner and this may be indicated from his use of the term ‘assumption’ but, also, because curriculum theory has not been widely developed in adult education.

Like many expressions of the romantic curriculum, andragogy emerged in the 1960s, although its history is far longer. Knowles (1978:51), himself, notes that he became aware of the term andragogy in the mid 1960s even though attempts ‘to bring isolated concepts, insights and research findings regarding adult learning together into an integrated framework began as early as 1949’ (Knowles 1978:48). Why then was it successful in the 1960s? It would be facile to suggest that the answer to this lay in the emergence of Knowles’ writings alone. Other expressions of the romantic curriculum were also being widely accepted in the 1960s, so that it must be recognised that both the agent and the social structures played their respective parts.

Romanticism and the 1960s

The 1960s, argues Martin (1981:15), were a manifestation of an ‘Expressive Revolution’, a period in which the structures of society were stretched and changed and for a brief period romanticism reigned. By the mid 1970s, the structures of society, changed as a result of the 1960s, reasserted themselves and society appeared more stable. Martin’s argument was originally formulated by Mary Douglas (1970) in which she claimed that all social systems have both external boundaries, which she calls group boundaries, and internal ones which she calls grid. Where both sets of boundaries are strong an individual is involved with other people but separated from them by numerous social customs and conventions. Each role is clearly defined and the role player is expected to play it precisely. But there are societies where both group and grid are weak and then she (1970:59) argues ‘man is neither bound by grid nor group. He is free of all constraints of a social kind’. It is this argument that Martin pursues when she argues that there are periods of history when zero structures may be approached. These are periods of expressiveness and romanticism. It is during these periods, when the structures of society are malleable, that innovations emerge and social change is possible. Witness the changes in the arts, youth culture, music, etc. in the 1960s. Once the period drew to a close in the mid 1970s, ‘many things which had seemed traumatic, revolutionary in the previous decade had been incorporated into mainstream culture’ (Martin 1981:16). But this also happened in the professions, education being one of those which responded to this social situation and one of the ways in which this occurred was through changes in the curriculum.

Basil Bernstein (1971), from whom Mary Douglas acknowledges she gained some of her main ideas, has shown precisely how this operates within the curriculum. He uses two different terms to contrast what are essentially the same two curriculum forms: the collection-type curriculum and the integrated type. A collection-type curriculum is essentially a subject based one in which each subject is clearly bounded and insulated from every other one – it is, in effect, a classical curriculum. Whereas the integrated-type curriculum is one where the subjects are not isolated from each other but are open to each other and this is a form of the romantic curriculum. Bernstein recognises that the boundaries between the subjects are significant and notes that collection-type curricula have a strong classification of disciplines but integrated curricula have a weak classification. For Bernstein the concept of classification is similar to Douglas’ grid boundaries, since they are boundaries internal to the curriculum.

However, the total curriculum is also framed: frame refers to the form of the context in which knowledge is transmitted and received. Hence where framing is strong: there is a clear demarcation of role between teacher and taught; a strong boundary separating that which should be taught from that which may not be included in the curriculum; the choice that the teacher and student have in what to teach/learn and how it should be learned and taught is reduced. By contrast, weak framing refers to the opposite set of conditions. Bernstein (1971:50–51) writes:

It follows, then, that the collection-type curriculum to which Bernstein refers, having strong classification and framing, are essentially similar to what Knowles regards as pedagogy and what Lawton and Skilbeck call the classical curriculum, whereas the integrated type of curriculum, having weak classification and framing, is essentially the same as the romantic curriculum or andragogy.

Crucial to Bernstein’s analysis is the idea of boundary maintenance, since here he is reaching beyond the curricula to the structures of the organisation in which they are implemented and ultimately, to the structures of society itself. Indeed, he (1971:61) claims that ‘where knowledge is regulated through a collection code, the knowledge is organised and distributed through a series of well-insulated subject hierarchies. Such a structure points to oligarchic control of the institution…’. Elsewhere in the same paper he (1971:67) maintains that the movement towards the integrated curriculum which he detected in the 1960s ‘symbolizes that there is a crisis in society’s basic classification and frames, and therefore a crisis in its structure of power and principles of control’. While the word ‘crisis’ is now seen to be rather too strong, he is clearly pointing to the fact that the 1960s was a period of change. Indeed, it was a period of romanticism when the person as well as the power structures of society were recognised as important and it was into this social and philosophical atmosphere that the concept of andragogy emerged.

The philosophy of progressive education may be discovered in the history of adult education before the 1960s. But as was pointed out, the historical antecedents to Knowles may be traced back to Dewey and indeed it may be traced back even further. Yet the significant point about progressivism is that, with few exceptions, it was not widely received prior to this time but in the 1960s romanticism appeared to be much more widely acceptable. The romantic curriculum and ideas of knowledge for the sake of self-development and self-expression became the vogue, experience and project work became commonplace, the integrated day became a way of life in some schools.

It was into this educational milieu that andragogy was launched, into a philosophy that was similar to it, and therefore, quite receptive to it. Hence, it is maintained here that andragogy emerged at a time when the structures of society were conducive to the philosophy underlying the theory and that its own structures reflected the structures of the wider society. However, the climate of the 1960s has now disappeared but, as Martin indicated, many of the innovations of the period have been incorporated within the mainstream culture. This has happened in the case of andragogy, it has assumed the status of a theory because it emerged when it did, and yet the debate about its validity is not yet complete.

Conclusion

The ‘two educations’ have been examined in this chapter and it has been shown that ‘education from above’ may be depicted in classical curriculum terms and it has been suggested that it becomes manifest in societies which have clear and strong structures whereas ‘education of equals’ is a more romantic form of curriculum which appears mainly at times when the structures of society are less forceful and the agent may be effective within society. Andragogy is a form of ‘education of equals’ and fits into this analysis quite easily but then it contains within it a philosophy of adulthood which presupposes equality between all participants in the teaching and learning transaction, whatever their role within it. However, it is now necessary to extend this analysis to various elements of the curriculum and while they are treated separately here, this is for the purposes of analyses only since the curriculum consists of a complex interrelationship between the traditional four elements, although assessment rather than evaluation is included here, and the wider social pressures.