Essentialism 1

Essentialism: Everything Old Is New Again

Etta M. Crittenden

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Essentialism 2

“The success of any organization is contingent upon clear, commonly

defined goals” (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999). The world of education is in

constant flux, often due to political changes both nationally and locally. These

changes in leadership bring with them changes in philosophy and structure of

perhaps the most important job in America: that of educating our future leaders. If

any organized group needs to have clarified goals, educators certainly do.

This past decade has been filled with controversy, complaint, and

oftentimes, confusion regarding expectations of the what, why, and how of

teaching. What do students need to know and be able to do to demonstrate

competency and mastery? Why are certain areas of curriculum receiving more

focus than others? How are educators to accomplish myriad assignments

imposed upon them from federal mandates to local school system requirements?

These questions have been asked numerous times by countless educators,

parents, and lawmakers.

The passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 has brought

a renewed interest in the tenets of Essentialism. Imig & Imig (2006) refer to

Diane Ravitch’s (2002) description of William C. Bagley as the “leading

dissident” among his colleagues who were heavily involved in forming a

progressive agenda for the nation’s schools, along with his notoriety as the

“father” of Essentialism. “His (Bagley’s) success should be measured by the fact

that essentialism is the undergirding philosophy for the NCLBA of 2001” (Imig &

Imig, 2006). “Essentialists contend that content matters and the focus of

schooling should be on student learning” (Imig & Imig, 2006). “Learned and

Essentialism 3

Bagley concluded that effective teachers should be gauged by the performance

of their pupils, but the authors also sought to understand and present the

qualities and practices effective teachers should demonstrate” (Imig & Imig,

2006). There are cautions about using only test scores to judge a teacher’s

classroom effectiveness, but this practice is prevalent among educators and

endorsed by lawmakers today. With these judgments and evaluations in place

educators, particularly principals and teachers, are wanting more definition to the

standards and curriculum that is expected to be mastered by students yearly.

The recent past has brought with it numerous approaches to teaching,

which have been tried and put aside. For example, in the early ‘90s the idea of

teaching reading through a “whole language” approach was the movement

sweeping our country. This was akin to the methods of teaching proposed by

earlier philosophers encouraging the practice of allowing the child to direct his

own learning. There was a clash between child-centered learning and having to

meet standards. Accountability of teachers came with the NCLBA of 2001. For

accountability purposes teachers soon realized they had to provide more

guidance and direction of the learning occurring within their own classrooms.

In the preface of his latest book, The Making of Americans, E. D. Hirsch

(2009) states that his purpose is to “…develop and explain neglected but

fundamental principles that must guide our schools in our current historical

situation if we are ever to achieve those inspiring (founding) ideals” (Hirsch,

2009). Hirsch, like Bagley (1938), expresses concern over the state of our

American education system. Bagley states “What the Essentialist theses

Essentialism 4

emphasized primarily was the weakness of the lower schools in failing to bring

increasingly large proportions of pupils to an easily attainable level of facility in

the basic art of reading” (as cited in Null & Ravitch, 2006). Imig & Imig (2006)

suggest that the basic ideas of Bagley and his colleagues in the early part of the

last century are similar to the concerns and ideas for the improvement of

education today. “We contend that the NCLBA (2001) represents a set of

strategies and action steps that could well be based on the recommendations of

the Learned and Bagley (1920) report” (Imig & Imig, 2006).

“Hirsch… praised Bagley when he wrote, ‘the integrationist tradition

represented by Dewey, Bagley, and others was the finest and soundest tradition

of pedagogical thinking in the United States” (Null, 2003). For reasons mentioned

above, the tenets of Essentialism deserve another look from a current viewpoint.

If we are to eliminate discrepancy and achieve commonality of curriculum

standards, there will have to be agreement on the basic essential components of

an effective curriculum, leading to the best effective practices of teaching.

Biographical information of William C. Bagley

Childhood

William Chandler Bagley, known as the father of essentialism, was born in

Detroit, Michigan in 1874 and spent his early years in both Michigan and

Massachusetts. Bagley attended elementary school in Quincy, Massachusetts a

school system possessing the distinction of being led by the famous educator,

Colonel Francis Wayland Parker. Parker was known for his “child centered”

teaching beliefs, visual instruction employed by those who worked under his

Essentialism 5

supervision, and the use of projects to engage students in learning. Even after

Parker left his position in Quincy, his innovative influences remained very much a

part of the educational experience of Bagley. Another influential educator in

Bagley’s early years was William H. Bartlett, whose skills as a disciplinarian

impressed Bagley. Schooling and politics were the two greatest interests of

young Bagley. His interest in politics continued into adulthood (Null, 2003).

Education and career

“Between the years of 1900 and 1946, William C. Bagley pursued a

professional career during an important era of American education” (Null, 2003).

Bagley was a graduate of Michigan Agricultural College, after which he spent

time teaching in a one-room school in Garth County, Michigan. “This decision

changed his life. He became captivated by the art of teaching and subsequently

chose to dedicate his life to the teaching profession” (Null, 2007). Bagley then

went to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin and Cornell University

earning a Ph.D. in psychology in 1900. While at Cornell, Bagley was highly

influenced by Edward B. Tichenor, one of the two most prominent American

psychologists of that day. Bagley chose to study under Tichenor because of his

laboratory, which was considered to be the best. The neurology lab at Cornell

was, reputed as being state of the art, was also a drawing card for Bagley.

Tichenor’s reputation as an involved, caring professor who continually challenged

students to think and apply their learning also had a positive influence on Bagley.

Perhaps one of the most important reasons Bagley chose Cornell was because

Essentialism 6

he was offered a Sage Graduate Fellowship that assisted in financing his studies

(Null, 2003).

After completing work on his Ph.D. his central focus became the education

of teachers and the curriculum used to educate them. Bagley began a long

career in working with young people who were preparing to become teachers.

He taught for four years at Montana State Normal School… and then for two more years at Oswego State Normal School in Oswego, New York. In 1908, he accepted a position as Professor of Education at the University of Illinois. At Illinois, Bagley established the University of Illinois’ School of Education. After serving as the School’s Inaugural Dean, he departed Illinois for Teachers College, Columbia University. At Teachers College, he served as chair of Teachers College’s department of teacher education. He taught at Teachers College from 1917 to 1939, when he retired at the age of 65 (Milson, Bohan, Glanzer & Null, Eds. 2004).

Philosopher

As stated earlier, William C. Bagley is the noted “father” of the

Essentialism movement. “It is through the school that the future of the race can

be influenced with the greatest certainty” (Bagley, 1905) Bagley’s beliefs

regarding the type of educational process needed in America were founded upon

years of concern stemming from observing the lack essential skills and other

fundamental needs of students such as reading. “Bagley compared American

education with the education systems of other countries such as Germany and

judged it to be weak, lacking in rigor, full of ‘frills,’ and inadequate in preparing

youth for productive participation in society” (Webb, 2006).

Bagley had his own fervent ideas as to the needs of the American

educational system. “Education may be tentatively defined, then, as the process

Essentialism 7

by means of which the individual acquires experiences that will function in

rendering more efficient his future action” (Bagley, 1905).

As Bagley looked at the educational system of his day, he was concerned

students were not getting basic skills, and that the teachers’ colleges were not

preparing teachers to be effective in their teaching of these skills. “Dissatisfied

with what they (Learned & Bagley, 1920) observed in the schools they examined,

they called for teachers with both the ‘external elements of skill’ and the ‘internal

elements of insight and resourcefulness’.” Instruction was another area of

concern for both Learned & Bagley (Imig & Imig, 2006). Bagley authored a

number of books and articles on various educational topics, including philosophy,

psychology, higher education and secondary education (Milson, et. al., 2004).

“The philosophy of essentialism grows out of Bagley’s moral commitment to the

education of teachers” (Null, 2007). Bagley was committed to improving the

education process for students and those who taught them.

The Birth of Essentialism

The Essentialist movement was borne out of the struggle between the

“traditionalist” and “progressive” approaches to curriculum and pedagogy. “The

philosophy of essentialism grows out of Bagley’s moral commitment to the

education of teachers (Null, 2007). He did not see this commitment from either

traditionalists or the progressives of his day.

The traditionalists’ stronghold on the liberal arts curriculum dated back to

Aristotle and Plato. Those who practiced this approach to education held tightly

to a liberal arts curriculum with a focus on Latin, Greek, mathematics, and

Essentialism 8

philosophy as the core subjects. Traditionalists in the late 19th and early 20th

centuries were not acknowledging that the American educational system was in

transition from being selective to being a more universal one, thus creating

problems for those who held this view of education. “Traditionalists did not have

the vision or the moral commitment to send out teachers to provide a liberal arts

curriculum to every American child” (Null, 2007).

“The progressive tradition in American education grew directly out of this

challenge of universal education in the face of expanding democratic opportunity”

(Null, 2007).

Bagley identified two specific causes of the United States’ educational malaise: (1) dominant educational theories, such as Progressivism, were ‘essentially enfeebling,’ and (2) the relaxation of academic standards in many school systems had led to the policy of widespread ‘social promotion’ (Gutek, 1997)

This resulted in challenges that were taken on by men like John Dewey, E. L.

Thorndike, and William Heard Kilpatrick, to name a few. They began to promote

a more vocational approach with curriculum differentiation based upon student

intelligence testing, student interest, project learning, and other approaches

resulting in the rejection of the traditionalist approach to education (Null, 2007).

In her article, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, Diane

Ravitch (as cited in Hirsch, 2008) identifies what Bagley acknowledged as the

problem with education of the 20th century, in her statement that “…the decline

was the startling result of what had been a gradual process of takeover by child-

centered theories starting early in the last century.” Bagley, a teacher-educator

himself, became very critical of extremism in any and all educational thought.

Essentialism 9

The extremism Bagley opposed was the vehement opposition by the

progressives to be anticurriculum and allow the child to direct his own learning.

William H. Kilpatrick was one who, in Bagley’s opinion, was guilty of

misinterpreting Dewey’s work in the Progressive movement.

While at Teachers College, Bagley entered into some of the most heated educational discussions of his career. Sometimes with, and often against, his colleague Kilpatrick, Bagley engaged in debates about the relative weight that should be given in educational theory to academic subject matter, on the one hand, and to the interests and needs of students on the other. Bagley never denied the importance of designing a curriculum that met the interests and needs of students. He often argued, however, that the emphasis that theorists such as Kilpatrick placed on the individual needs of students often eclipsed the necessity for academic subject matter in the curriculum. Importantly, Bagley sought a reasonable view of professional education that balanced the needs of students with a rigorous academic curriculum. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1780/Bagley-William-C-1874-1946.html

At the same time Bagley was engaged in debating the appropriateness of

the Progressive approach to education, another very vocal opponent was also on

the scene. Isaac Kandel, in a 1939 interview said the following:

Rejecting…emphasis on formal subject matter, the progressives began to worship at the altar of the child. Children [they said] should be allowed to grow in accordance with their needs and interests…Knowledge is valuable only as it is acquired in a real situation; the teacher must be present to provide the proper environment for experiencing but must not intervene except to guide and advise. There must, in fact, be “nothing fixed in advance” and subjects must not be “set-out-to-be-learned” …No reference was ever made to the curriculum or its content…. The full weight of the progressive attack is against subject matter and the planned organization of a curriculum in terms of subjects (as cited in Hirsch, 2008).

Essentialism 10

Though there were opposing viewpoints by men like the ones named above,

there were still some points of agreement. The Essentialism movement was an

attempt to salvage the important components of Progressive education, while at

the same time putting an emphasis on a unique philosophy of professional

education. Bagley’s personal philosophy of teacher education was to integrate

subject-matter disciplines, teaching techniques and to maintain a focus on the

question of purpose (Milson, et. al., 2004).

Many of the ideas held by the Progressive movement were in line with

Bagley’s own ideas to the extent that some educators questioned whether or not

Bagley himself was a Progressive.

If, as Lawrence Cremin suggested, the progressive movement consisted of ‘tough-minded pedagogues’ who thought with an ‘educator’s mind,’ who promoted ‘socially responsible reforms,’ and who possessed ‘fundamentally moderate’ views, then Bagley must be considered a major figure in the progressive education movement (Null, 2003). Null (2007) states “…essentialism integrates progressive and traditional

education in order to focus on the moral, pedagogical challenge of

providing a liberal arts curriculum to every child in the nation.” This very

simple statement represents a very complex occurrence. Bagley fit very

well into the integrationist pedagogical philosophy of teaching. “…the

integrationist tradition made no distinction between liberal and

professional curriculum for teachers” (Null, 2007). The liberal arts

education of the traditionalists included reading, mathematics, and other

subjects of focus. Bagley believed these subjects were components of an

essential curriculum. At the same time, Bagley was involved in providing

Essentialism 11

the best professional curriculum for those preparing to be teachers. ”In

addition to Bagley and David Felmley (1914), the integrationist philosophy

also is evident in the work of educational philosopher Isaac Leon Kandel”

(Cremin, 1966; Kandel, 1924, 1933, 1939, Null, 2007) Integrationists set

forth the first fully developed understanding of curriculum for teachers,

always integrating pedagogy with other disciplines, advocated for special

methods courses, and argued for one semester of practice teaching for all

who were preparing to enter the classroom as teachers (Null, 2007).

Bagley summed up the integrationist philosophy by using the term

“professionalized subject-matter” which was prevalent in many of the

normal schools of his day. Unfortunately, this philosophy was never

adopted by those in higher education, and faced challenges from others

with differing philosophies of the day, such as technicians, traditionalists,

and progressives (Null, 2007).

The essentialism movement began with more than just Bagley’s ideas. He

realized if he was going to be heard he would have to initiate a movement within

education circles. F. Alden Shaw, Headmaster of the Detroit Country Day School,

along with Michael John Demiashkevich, a professor at George Peabody College

for Teachers, agreed to work with Bagley in establishing the essentialist

movement. All three men were aware of the timing of this movement and urged

Bagley to initiate an informal meeting in Atlantic City at the meeting of the

Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association (NEA)

(Null, 2007).

Essentialism 12

Demiashkevich’s book on the philosophy of education included the

following:

The future educational administrator and teacher, while naturally attracted by the new or supposedly new theories of education, should not overlook as one of the possible sources of their own philosophy of education the school of educational thought which may be designated as ‘essentialist’. This school of thought among whose distinguished representatives in this country are William C. Bagley, Thomas H. Briggs, Herman H. Horne, I. L. Kandel, Paul Monroe, Dean James E. Russell, Fran E. Spaulding and George D. Strayer… (Null, 2003).

The description of the group’s views was very close to the ideas of a more

traditional viewpoint, which was not the goal of Bagley. The “essentialist”

designation was one Bagley could accept. With the acceptance of the label

“essentialist”, he began to think of an entirely new educational philosophy he

would title “Essentialism”, which he hoped would counteract a portion of the

extremism of the Progressives of his day. Bagley’s concerns were with the

movement which Counts and Kilpatrick were leading which encompassed such

ideas as intelligence testing, vocational education, the doctrine of interest and

other ideas to which he was philosophically opposed (Null, 2003). Their

“progressivism” was quite different from the progressivism of the past, with which

Bagley had some commonality.

Bagley was planning to be involved in another discussion at the Atlantic

City meeting. John Dewey was going to deliver a critique of his own philosophy

of education at this same meeting. Bagley had planned to be included in a

Essentialism 13

discussion with Dewey at this meeting. After much correspondence between

Shaw, Bagley, and Demiashkevich, the group decided they needed to avoid

social or economic conservatives, and to focus on argument for effort, discipline,

sequence, and system in the processes and materials in education (Null, 2003).

On Tuesday, March 1, 1938, Bagley did take the stage with Dewey.

Through the discussion Bagley did reiterate his charges against progressivism

stating that

…the dominant educational theories had abandoned rigorous standards of academic achievement, disparaged all system and sequence in curriculum and teaching, accepted the so-called ‘activity-movement’ without discriminating thought, discredited the academic disciplines, and had used the lower schools inappropriately to establish a new social order (Null, 2003). As part of the final essentialist platform, Bagley and the essentialist

group “established that the first principles of the essentialists were found in the

First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the other ideals of American

democracy” The basic educational principles of the essentialist movement were

given as

First…the right of an immature student to the guidance and direction of a well educated, caring, and cultured teacher. Second…a powerful democracy demanded a community of democratic culture that, although not static, should be taught to each succeeding generation of children. Third...a specific program of studies that required thoroughness, accuracy, persistence, and good workmanship on the part of pupils. Finally, although the group recognized the necessity of informal learning through activities in the early grades, they contended that the recognized essentials of the curriculum should be taught ‘through a systematic program of studies and activities for the carrying out of which the teachers should be held responsible (Null, 2003).

Essentialism 14

While Bagley thought his speech was only to be heard by those attending

the conference, Dr. Louis Shores leaked the platform to an Atlantic City

newspaper that promptly displayed the platform on the front page. The mistake

may have, however, been an opportunity for the group to recruit new members.

After the Atlantic City experience, Bagley continued to debate and tolerate

Kilpatrick. He also had opportunities to address news articles regarding Dewey

(Null, 2003).

Unfortunately the decline of essentialism began only a few months after

the meeting in Atlantic City. Michael Demiashkevich committed suicide after a

long battle with depression. His death was not only a shock to Bagley, but it took

from the essentialists one of the most notable proponents of the movement. The

main part of the work then fell to Bagley and Shaw. The tasks of overseeing a

school and trying to launch a new organization with no money to support the

hiring of administrative help was too much for Shaw to handle. Bagley retired

shortly thereafter and was looking forward to some rest and relaxation. “The

organization’s membership roster became dormant after Demiashkevich’s death,

due to Shaw’s attention to other administrative duties, as a result of Bagley’s

retirement, and because of the onset of World War II” (Null, 2003). Bagley died in

July of 1946. His death, along with that of Demiashkevich left no one to nurture

the new group. Sadly, though this group may have been a “unifying social and

political force in curriculum and the profession of teaching died after only a few

years” (Null, 2003).

Implications for Essentialism in today’s educational circles

Essentialism 15

“For as long as there has been a historical record, educational theories

have wavered in emphasis between two opposed but equally important needs in

schooling: rigor and flexibility” (Hirsch, 1996). One viewpoint may be that these

two opposing elements can also be representative of theories such as

traditionalism and progressivism. Traditionalists had the liberal arts curriculum

that would represent some rigor; the progressives were more “child centered”,

socially concerned, and believed in more relaxed standards representative of the

more flexible approach. While there is good to be said for both groups, which is

what Bagley tried to propose with essentialism, there is a need for focused,

strategic planning if students in classrooms today are going to have the skills

they need in order to be successful.

Bagley’s call for a return to a rigorous curriculum is much like the modern

cries from educators today. Gaudelli (2002) reports the disturbing reality that

children in the United States cannot demonstrate basic knowledge in social

studies skills.

Essentialists argue that core knowledge and skills are vital to a successful society, because those requisite abilities allow the individual to be an economically productive member of society….essentialists concern themselves with teaching students how to survive, succeed in their lives, and not be a burden to others (Gaudelli, 2002). These same ideas are those discussed in the original tenets of

essentialism when Cremin described Bagley as being “socially responsible” (Null,

2003). The economic crisis facing our nation today, once again, calls for socially

responsible citizens. As Bagley and the essentialists also believed, the

Essentialism 16

foundation behind being socially responsible required knowledge and skills in

certain curriculum areas.

The basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic have been the mantra of essentialists, with some recent acknowledgment of technology, arguing that the value of academic work lies in unearthing the ‘basics’ that students can use in their future lives. U. S. history can be vocationally meaningful if it is taught so that the skills used in studying history are transferable to the workplace and the real world of economic life (Gaudelli, 2002).

The movement to adopt common standards supports Gaudelli’s argument

among our school systems. Bagley proposed common curriculum for all students

during his day. Today national common core standards leading to a national test

sounds appealing, especially in our current transient society. Students who move

within school systems, or even across state lines are often disadvantaged

because of the lack of commonality among the standards and curriculum being

used.

Essentialists believe that there is a common core of knowledge that needs to be transmitted to students in a systematic, disciplined way. …The core of the curriculum is essential knowledge and skills and academic rigor. Although this educational philosophy is similar in some ways to Perennialism, Essentialists accept the idea that this core curriculum may change. Schooling should be practical, preparing students to become valuable members of society. It should focus on facts-the objective reality out there--and "the basics," training students to read, write, speak, and compute clearly and logically. Schools should not try to set or influence policies. Students should be taught hard work, respect for authority, and discipline. … This approach was in reaction to progressivist approaches prevalent in the 1920s and 30s. William Bagley, took progressivist approaches to task in the journal he formed in 1934. Other proponents of Essentialism are: James D. Koerner (1959), H. G. Rickover (1959), Paul Copperman (1978), and Theodore Sizer (1985) (Cohen & Gelbrich, 1999).

Essentialism 17

The NCLBA (2001) has a reading and math focus. This is not unlike the

argument Bagley used against the social reconstructionists when he stated that

…instead of attempting to reconstruct society and use the schools as agents of social engineering, educators would serve society better by preparing “literate citizens knowledgeable in fundamental skills and knowledge that was of unquestioned value and permanence and that provides the basis for intelligent understanding and for the collective thought and judgment that are the essence of our democratic institutions “ (Bagley, as cited in Webb, 2006).

The NAEP-US study serves as a reminder that students in society today do not

possess the basic skills identified in essentialism or even those deemed

important by the traditionalists. “Essentialists would be most concerned with the

inability of many students to write cogent responses to the open-ended questions

posed by the test....” (Gaudelli, 2002). Educators everywhere would agree that all

children/students should possess the skills needed to perform these basic tasks.

“The need in a democracy to teach children a shared body of knowledge was

explained many years ago by Thomas Jefferson when he described his ‘bill to

diffuse knowledge more generally through the mass of the people’ ” (Hirsch,

1996).

Today American educators are facing the reality of adopting Common

Core Standards throughout our nation’s schools. The Mission Statement posted

by the Council of Chief State Schools’ Officers (CCSSO) states

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant

Essentialism 18

to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. http://www.corestandards.org/

Achievement discrepancy currently abounds on scores of standardized tests and

their interpretation. Often cut scores are different and standards are measured

differently from state to state. “Clear, intelligible standards are a pillar of higher

achievement. Aligned with appropriate assessment, they can help us realize the

dream of learning for all. They are the heart of the infrastructure for school

improvement “(Rosenholtz, 1991: Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991 as cited in

Schmoker & Marzano, 1999). As stated in the mission statement above, the goal

is consistency and clarity for educators, students, and parents.

The words often heard in today’s educational circles concerning

standards, whether they are individual state standards or in reference to the

common core standards, are the words “rigor” and “relevance”. Our Tennessee

standards have been revised with more rigor than previous sets of standards.

Traditionalists like Kilpatrick were of the belief that natural learning is automatic

with children. Bagley and others argued that children needed the guidance of a

prepared teacher. Hirsch (1996) discusses research findings regarding the brain

and learning, which repudiates the ideas of Kilpatrick. “On the contrary, scientists

have found that it takes repeated practice to forge new neural paths in our brains.

Learning involves effort, whether through unconscious play or conscious

diligence” (Hirsch, 1996). Standards are designed to provide guidance for what

teachers teach and students need to learn. “Every nation that manages to

Essentialism 19

achieve universal readiness in the early grades for all its children…does so by

following grade-by-grade standards” (Hirsch, 1996).

Common standards, while not a new idea, are an important issue for

educators today. Hirsch (1996) quotes Bagley regarding his own awareness of

the problem of mobility and need for common standards in the United States.

Bagley summarized the problem of American nomadism and its effects on

education as follows:

The notion that each community must have a curriculum all its own is not only silly, but tragic. It neglects two important needs. The first, as we have already seen, is the need of a democracy for many common elements in the culture of the people to the end that the people may discuss collective problems in terms that will convey common meanings. The second need is extremely practical. It is the need of recognizing the fact that American people simply will not “stay put.” They are the most mobile people in the world…Under these conditions, failure to have a goodly measure of uniformity in school subjects and grade placement is a gross injustice to at least ten million school children at the present time.

With this quote Bagley aptly describes the needs among children for common

standards. Yet, even with this argument, Bagley was not taken seriously enough

for the movement of Essentialism to really become an influence on the nation’s

school systems. Interestingly enough, educators face more mobility among

students, as well as language differences, which add to the need for commonality

in the school curriculum.

Today’s need for common core standards is very similar to the same

needs Bagley identified in the early 20th century. Like the challenges Bagley

faced, there are dissenting voices being heard today. “A growing movement to

Essentialism 20

ground school curriculum and instruction in local geography, ecology, culture,

economy, and history—often referred to as place-based education—is capturing

the attention of many rural educators across the country” (Gibbs, & Howley,

2001). The issue has become one of concern that state standards erode control

of education on the local level. Those who have these concerns believe any links

to students’ lives and their locale will be severed. Policymakers are charged with

assuring that all students acquire skills necessary to perform the high-level tasks

required for the twenty-first century to ensure their abilities to compete in national

and global markets (Gibbs & Howley, 2001).

In an effort to comply with accountability legislation, schools and districts align their curricula with state-adopted standards or with the published objectives, of competency tests. Some observers have found that curriculum alignment tends to narrow the focus of academic programs and to reinforce traditional methods of direct instruction, particularly in low-income districts (Firestone, Camilli, Yrurecko, Monfils, & Mayrowetz, 2000 as cited in Gibbs & Howley, 2001).

This type of solution to the problem does not totally alleviate the concerns of

anyone. Educators realize the need for state standards, while local leaders want

the focus to be more place-based. The tenets of the place-based approach to

learning align very well with the progressive approaches during Bagley’s lifetime.

As Gibbs and Howley (2001) state, “Despite important differences between the

two approaches, practical circumstances often require educators to bridge the

gap.” Through some programs, such as the Foxfire program and service

learning, educators have been able to combine integrated academic instruction

with service learning. Even with this approach many still question if local

educational value can be enhanced (Gibbs & Howley, 2001).

Essentialism 21

The challenge for educators today seems to be in finding the best possible

approach to ensure future generations are highly qualified to lead our nation. The

issues facing Bagley in the realm of education have resurfaced, or perhaps never

really were solved. If Bagley’s essentialism philosophy had been adopted many

years ago, one can only wonder if educators would still be fighting the same

battles regarding standards, curriculum, and preparation. Implications for

assuring a better educational system appear to be for leaders today to revisit and

apply the tenets of Essentialism, especially where curriculum and teacher

preparation are concerned. “What has been will be again, what has been done

will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New

International Version) or in a more modern vernacular, “Everything old is new

again”. Both these statements seem to aptly apply to education, as we know it.

As educators we need to look at what has worked and keep using it, even if it is

old; while realizing “new” does not always mean “better”. The bottom line is that,

as educators, we must always be open to new research while maintaining the

“tried and true” for the success of our students, our future educational system,

and our nation.

Essentialism 22

References

Bagley, W.C. (1938). Are the essentialists the true progressives? In Null, J. W. &

Ravitch, D. (Eds.). Forgotten heroes of American education; The great

tradition of teaching teachers (pp.235-243). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Bagley, W. C. (1905). The Educative Process. Norwood, MA: Norwood Press.

Bagley, W. C. (2004.). Selected writings of William C. Bagley. In Milson, A.,

Bohan,C., Glanzer, P. & Null, W. (Eds.). Readings in American

educational thought: From puritanism to progressivism (pp. 423-451).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bagley, W. C., (n.d.). http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1780/Bagley-

William-C-1874-1946. html">William C. Bagley (1874–1946) - Early

Career, Teachers College</a>

Cohen, L. M., & Gelbrich, J., (1999). Module one: History and philosophy of

education. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/PP3.html

Council of Chief State School Officers, http://www.corestandards.org/

Gaudelli, W. (2002). U. S. kids don’t know U.S. history: The NAEP study,

Perspectives, and presuppositions. The Social Studies, 93(5), 197-201.

Gibbs, T. J., & Howley, A., (2001). “World-class standards” and local pedagogies:

Can we do both? Thresholds in Education, 51-55.

Gutek, G. L. (1997). Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education

Essentialism 23

(Second Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hirsch, E. D., (2008). http://67.199.26.188/pubs-

reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/hirsch.pdf.

Hirsch, E.D., (2009). The making of Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Hirsch, E. D., (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New

York, NY: Anchor Books.

Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2006). How 80 years of essentialist control have

shaped the teacher education profession. Journal of Teacher Education,

57, 167-180. doi:10.1177/0022487105285672.

Null, J. W. (2003). A disciplined progressive educator: The life and career of

William Chandler Bagley. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Null, J. W. (2007). Curriculum for teachers: Four traditions within pedagogical

philosophy. Educational Studies, 42, 43-63.

Null, J. W. (2007). William C. Bagley and the founding of essentialism: An untold

story in American educational history. Teachers College Record, 109,(4),

1013-1055.

Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J., (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-

based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.

Webb, L. D., (2006). The history of American education: A great American

experiment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Essentialism 24