Free schooling or freedom schooling? Negotiating constructivist learning and anti-racism in the Berkeley Experimental Schools

ABSTRACT

Critical pedagogues advocate a constructivist approach to learning emphasising the self-directed construction of knowledge from the learners’ experiences while also expecting students to develop an explicit critique of the social order. However, the use of a constructivist approach for the pursuit of explicit ideological goals leaves educators with a dilemma: what happens when students’ reflections don’t lead them to the anti-oppressive conclusions teachers desire? Using comparative historical archival methods and oral history interviews, this study interrogates how teachers and students navigated this paradox in the Berkeley Experimental Schools Project (1968–1975), a public educational programme that sought to actualise the goals of both the Free School and Black Power movements. This study sheds light on this dilemma with particular clarity because the Free Schools represent one of the U.S.’ most radical experiments in constructivist pedagogy, and the Black Power movement one of our most heightened efforts to challenge systemic oppression. In demonstrating that in Berkeley, it was easier to build self-directed inquiry on a foundation of explicit critique than to build anti-racism on a foundation of free inquiry, this study elucidates tensions at the heart of critical pedagogy, social justice education, and curriculum theory.

KEYWORDS:

• Critical pedagogy
• social justice education
• constructivism
• anti-racist pedagogy
• social movements in education
• progressive education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. This tension has existed since the inception of liberal democratic pedagogies during the Progressive Era. John Dewey, often considered the father of progressive education, believed that the individual and society exist in harmonious, dialectical relationship to each other. Thus, he saw no contradiction between students’ autonomous critical thinking and the development of democratic dispositions, and believed that pedagogical approaches that encouraged such self-directed learning could lead to the creation of a more democratic society. However, other progressive educators of the time such as George Counts, believed that progressive educators should actually embrace indoctrination in lieu of students’ autonomous thinking, for it would be better to indoctrinate children with democratic commitments than to allow them to become ‘completely victimized and molded by the mechanics of industrialism’ (Counts 1932, 27). This is because Counts believed imposition is always happening, as children are moulded by their environments. Thus, this tension between the development of students’ autonomous critical thinking, and the development of their explicit ideological critique has long sat at the heart of liberal democratic pedagogies such as progressive education.

2. Although educators tended not to use the term ‘constructivist’ by the 1960s, there exists a continuity of ideas, set of practices, and shared theoretical tendencies from the constructivism of the Progressive Era to the Free Schools of the 1960s, and critical pedagogy today (Cho 2012; Dropkin and Tobier 1976). Thus, consistent with Labaree (2005), this study uses the term ‘constructivist’ to refer to a set of pedagogical practices that include: 1) emphasis on learning by doing, 2) the cultivation of manual as well as intellectual skills, 3) nurturing of the independence, autonomy, and self-reliance of the child, 4) anti-coercive and anti-authoritarian teaching, 5) the fostering of student individuality, 6) pupil participation in decision-making, 7) informal relations between students and teachers, 8) emphasis on reason and critical thinking, 9) cooperative and collaborative learning environments, and 10) education for social responsibility and democracy.

3. Following Eve Ewing (2020), I capitalize both ”Black” and ”White,” except when quoting other texts where ”Black” and ”White” are not already capitalized in the original manuscript. Following the lead of Black scholars, I capitalize ”Black” to denote respect for a group of people with a shared heritage and history. I also capitalize White, because as Ewing argues, by not capitalizing ”White,” ”we contribute to [Whiteness'] seeming neutrality and thereby grant it power to maintain its invisibility” (Ewing, 2020). Rather, Whiteness is a specific social category that confers identifiable and measurable social benefits.

4. The Institute for Scientific Analysis conducted a three-year longitudinal study of the Berkeley Experimental Schools, beginning in 1973, while the schools were still in existence. This three-volume study included both qualitative and quantitative data and drew from student interviews during the time the schools were still operational. Since the Berkeley Experimental Schools were a large, federally funded project, and interest in the results of experimental schools like free schools was high in the 1970s, many researchers were hired to conduct research on the Berkeley Experimental Schools during the time of their existence. I drew from these descriptive research reports in my analysis of the impact of the Berkeley Experimental Schools’ pedagogical practices.

5. Name changed to protect participant’s identity.

6. Name changed to protect participant’s identity.

7. Name changed to protect participant’s identity.