Child-centred education

Entwistle's “Child-centred Education” is a brilliant contribution, strongly recommended to both practitioners and theoreticians of education in the public schools as well as the universities. Whether the reader favors or opposes so-called “child- centered education”, or is ignorant of it, he will profit from reading this book. The author draws upon historical examples of theory and practice to illustrate his points, but is more concerned to develop and defend his own concept of child-centered education. Most examples refer to British practices, and British theorists are slightly more prominent than might seem appropriate. But the book's British orientation is no impediment to the non-British reader. Entwistle's obvious efforts to develop his own concept of child-centered education will be regarded as a strong point of the book by everyone except the most prejudiced advocates of traditional Progressivism. Careful analyses of concepts and slogans are made when necessary, but such analysis is ( properly) subordinated to the development of synoptic definitions and recommendations based upon syntheses of approaches previously considered unrelated or even antagonistic. Most of the book is a careful but wide-ranging study of the general philosophical, social, and psychological arguments which would support or oppose particular concepts of child -center ed education. F or example, in chapter four Entwistle develops a brilliant analysis of the relationships among freedom, constraint, authority, democracy, and discipline in education. He claims to be following Dewey, but at the same time discusses the authority of the charismatic teacher (e .g., Jesus ) and recognizes the need for teacher- imposed discipline. He reaches a Platonic- sounding conclusion that subject matter imposes the authority of its internal constraints equally upon teacher and pupil, thereby safeguarding the learner aga nst autocratic teaching and justifying the teacher in requiring appropriate activities. In later chapters Entwistle argues that the “now” orientation of most child-centered educationists underemphasizes the child's future needs, but that a spiral curriculum ( Bruner) based upon the child's developmental stages ( Freud, Piaget, Whitehead ) would reconcile the present-future antithesis. Curriculum activities must be judged not only according to their intrinsic interest as perceived by the learner (the traditional Progressivist cri terion ), but also according to their present and utopian value to the learner's society. Entwistle's book should really be called “Learner-centred Education,” since its scope is so broad. As the author himself notes (chapter one), much of the disruption of university-level education is occurring because students are demanding the adoption of the philosophy and practices of Progressivist and child-centered education . In Entwistle 's book liberal arts professors would find their naive assumptions about curriculum, discipline, and administration explored with proper care and precision . The book's short “conclusion” is really a summary; hence, a reader with limited time or interest should begin there. In any case, the reader of ‘The Educational Forum’ would do well to become a reader of Entwistle's excellent work. Kenneth Robert Conklin, Emory University, 1971.