Shinichi Suzuki

My name is Shinichi Suzuki and I was born on October 17, 1898, in Nagoya, Japan.  My father was the owner of the first and largest violin factory in Japan.  Having said this, it may come as a surprise to find out that I did not hear a violin being played until I was 17 years old.  I fell in love with the instrument.  I could not believe this instrument, which I had always believed to be a simple toy, could make such beautiful sounds.  

Eventually, I began teaching children to play the violin. Doing this inspired the creating of my method, The Suzuki Method, Talent Education.  I realized that children can learn music just as they learn to speak. For example, infants do not learn to talk by starting with printed letters and words. Instead, the child learns to listen, and then speak.  Letters are then taught and gradually reading occurs. This development occurs naturally and with relative ease.  I call this the Mother Tongue Method.  We use this method with teaching – first listening, then practicing notes, and gradually playing the instrument occurs.  If this type of natural learning can be applied to teaching other skills, I believe learning can occur successfully.

My Method is based on the following ideas:

1. The human being is a product of his environment.
2. The earlier, the better – with not only music, but all learning.
3. Repetition of experiences is important for learning.
4. Teachers and parents (adult human environment) must be at a high level and continue to grow to provide a better learning situation for the child.

My teaching also emphasizes parental involvement. It is critically important that my students be supported, guided, and genuinely encouraged at home; I believe that if love is deep, learning potential is unlimited. Additionally, given that learning by listening is an effective learning technique, students must be immersed in music even while at home.

I also emphasize kindness and goodness in my students. I believe music can help my student develop beautiful hearts, sensitivity, and endurance.   Creating good citizens is at the heart of my wishes for my students and the foundation for my teaching. During lessons, I always encourage my students to be kind to everyone—their friends, families, and teachers.  Often, I will assign them the task of doing good deeds for those they love.

My students are not musical geniuses although they play flawlessly at very high levels.  I do no testing for ability before accepting students for lessons. All children, regardless of age, are capable of excellence if taught the right way, as the world has seen.  

My method applies to this class by emphasizing that children are not born with skill - talent is not a "special thing" that only few people have.   Do you agree with me?  If not, how can we reach struggling students (especially those that enter our school systems already behind)?

I believe that when children have a supportive and loving environment, they have limitless potential.   What is the role of educators in supporting students when this environment is not found at home?

Stephen Krashen

Hello again, my name is Stephen Krashen. I am currently an Emeritus professor of Education at the University of Southern California in the School of Education. I hold a PhD in Linguistics from UCLA. I consider myself a linguist, educational researcher and activist. People would say I am best known for developing the first comprehensive theory of second language acquisition. I have also made contributions to the theory and application in the area of bilingual education and I have done some important work in the area of reading.

There are five hypotheses of my theory of second language acquisition; the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Natural Order Hypothesis. My following quote summarizes the theory of second language acquisition.

“What my theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not 'on the defensive'... Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production."

I also have many opinions based on research when it comes to reading. The National Panel of Reading does their own research on the effectiveness of different types of reading instruction, which are guidelines most educators follow. I often challenge their research through articles and letters I write. I believe students learn to read through Free Voluntary Reading time and access to quality public and school libraries, which is not necessarily supported by (NPR). Free Voluntary Reading can consist of Silent Sustained Reading time each day. Successful models of SSR typically allow students to select their own books and do not require testing for comprehension or book reports. The case for libraries is simple students become better readers by reading more. Librarians are also crucial because they help students find books of interest so they will read more.

My ideas and opinions while based on research are sometimes misinterpreted or considered controversial. I am not afraid to make my opinions known or challenge other people’s research. Do you find yourself in your field of expertise challenging the status quo? Do you think that learning should be forced instruction or that students should be allowed to make some choices?

Hilda Taba

Good evening! My name is Hilda Taba. Let me tell you a little about myself. I was born in 1902 in Estonia. I began my education there at a parish school and then at an all-girls grammar school. I received my undergraduate at Tartu University in English and Philosophy. I got my masters in Pennsylvania and then went to the Teacher's College at Columbia University. After I completed that program, I went back to Tartu University to get a job, but was turned down for being female. I ended up as the curriculum director at Dalton School in New York City.

I was a student of John Dewey and have many of the same views as him. While I was curriculum director, I formed some strong opinions on how accountable educators should be for their teaching. I've even written seven books on this subject. I believe curriculum should be focused on teaching students to think rather than just to regurgitate facts. One of my famous quotes is "no matter what views people have of the function of education, they can at least agree that people need to learn to think." We should be preparing our young people to participate in our culture.

I believe there are three levels of knowledge: 1) facts, 2) basic ideas and principles, and 3) concepts. Too often, too many facts are presented too quickly and it does not give the student enough time to connect with prior knowledge, form their own opinion and develop the concept. If facts are given too quickly, they will be forgotten within two years. Because I died in my sixties while I was still an educator, my students continued my work. Many of my students (who were members of the Institute for Staff Development in Miami), used the ideas above to create four thinking strategies known as the Taba approach. The four strategies are concept development, interpretation of data, application of generalizations, and interpretations of feelings, attitudes and values. Using all four strategies, the Taba approach’s goal is to facilitate students in thinking more efficiently.

I also think all teachers should serve as mediators rather than lecturers. They should lead the discussion, but allow students to share opinions and relate to their peers ideas. I also think that too many times teachers give their opinions, not verbally, but with non-verbal cues, such as smiles and head nods when they agree with what is being said, and eyebrow raises or scratching of their head when they don't agree. This is judging the student and shuts down their answers, thinking they will be wrong every time.

I am not swayed easily by all the glitz and glamour of new curriculum. I think advancing technologically is important, but I can discriminate well between what is essential in curriculum and non-essential. Teachers should not be misled by all the materials included in curriculum (workbooks, overhead, CD's, etc.), because most likely it won't be used. My theory is teach them to think and they will go far.

With that being said, do you think we "spoonfeed" our students in this country too much? Are we giving them answers as opposed to making them think for themselves?

Caroline Pratt

Greetings! I am Caroline Pratt founder of New York’s City & Country School and my wooden block units. I am known throughout Progressive Education circles for my beliefs about how children learn. I stand firm in my belief against “the repression of formal education”. I believe the use of open-ended work materials offer children the opportunity to recreate the world around them. You can read one of my books published in 1948, I Learn from Children. I truly have taken great pleasure in learning from children and I encourage you to do the same. Do not copy my activities as a blueprint. Watch and learn from your children letting them guide the learning.
I lived from 1867-1954. After graduating from Teachers’ College I moved to Philadelphia to teach at the Philadelphia Normal School for Girls. While refining my ideas about teaching, I learned quite a bit from the Quaker people. “I began to see education not as an end in itself, but as the first step in progress which should continue during a lifetime. The schools job was to begin education, not finish it.” After teaching first grade for five years in my hometown of Fayetteville, New York, I planned to become a kindergartener. This was a radical idea in the Victorian times. Before now children were looked at sinful and morally corrupt. I rejected this notion along with other Progressives like Jean Rousseau, John Dewey, Johann Pestalozzi, and Friedich Frobel. We viewed childhood as a unique and distinct time in life characterized by innocence and a view of children as essentially good. We saw play and activity as central to growth and development. I varied from others in my belief of play though. I wanted the children to guide their own play, unlike some of my counterparts who encouraged children to be active through controlled activities directed by a teacher.
In my day people wanted to call me a feminist, but I preferred to be called a radical. I chose not to marry and committed myself to a woman centered lifestyle. I scoffed at the notion of women’s role as “natural” teachers and mothers. For me, teaching young children is critical to democracy and should not be left in the hands of non-experts.
In 1913 I opened Play School in Greenwich Village where my students were free to be creative and learn through play. We later changed the name of Play School to City & Country School per the children’s request. They felt they worked too hard for people to think they only played at school. The children think of this as their school as opposed to the grown ups’.
You won’t find textbooks, workbooks, and test at our school. Lessons are based from the interest of children and field trips around our neighborhood. All activities have to be meaningful for the students, not the teacher. Children learn to create a democratic society through their social interactions at play. You will find my wooden block units I am known for. John Dewey praised my wooden unit blocks. Children 2-7 use them as part of their play. They use them to create, solve problems, and challenge themselves. Real world experiences are recreated in class using blocks, paper, crayons, and clay. There is no set curriculum, no subjects, no grading, no direct instruction, and especially no reading. Subject matter is taught as necessary as it emerges through play. For example learning arithmetic takes place in the context of making change when playing store. As children are ready, they begin authoring books about their play and experiences.
Our “eights” and up students have important jobs where they run the school store. They display goods, serve customers, handle money, and record transactions. They even write to wholesalers for supplies, balance the books, and pay the bills of the school store. Students rotate jobs and share responsibility as their ability allows. You see this “play” is work. Real work that is important for the growth of our students and meaningful to them as well.
My only rule is this: students have to work. Work at play. Play is not to release the inner child, or for amusement, play is serious business of building democracy. I believe “ You will not find a child anywhere who will sit still and idle unless he is sick – or in a traditional classroom.”
Through my time learning from children and fighting against the traditional curriculum, I have had my struggles with parents. I have a difficult time seeing them as experts. Our largest area of contention is about reading. “parents are anxious to have their child begin reading, they say, because reading is the beginning of their education…my entire life, and our school, and this very book have been devoted to the cause of demonstrating that education does not begin with books, but with life; that books are only a part of a child’s learning, not even the most important.”
How would my thought “education does not begin with books, but with life; that books are only a part of a child’s learning, not even the most important” go over with parents at your school? If you are a parent and are becoming an expert on curriculum, how do you feel about this thought?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Emile)

Greetings! As you may remember, I am Emile, a character in “On Education.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote this book in 1762. He considered it his most important work and some regard it as the first complete philosophy of education. The text is divided into five books; the first three are devoted to the description of my education. The fourth book is an exploration of adolescence and the fifth book discusses the education of Sophie, whom you have already met. The section titled “Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar,” which discussed religion, created great criticism and caused the book to be banned and burned. Despite the controversy, it was a European bestseller and during the French Revolution, “Emile” inspired a new national system of education.

The story of my tutor and myself are used to exemplify how ideal citizens should be educated. The opening line in the book reads, “Everything is good in leaving the hands of the Creator of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man.” This is Rousseau’s main philosophy and his work is an outline for how to maintain “innate human goodness,” while being part of the corrupt society.

Rousseau believed education should be less dependent on books and result from interactions with the world. He presented an example of a boy whose father takes him to fly kites. The father asks the child to infer what position the kite is in the sky by looking at the shadow. Rousseau wanted to children to develop an understanding of the world through exploration and without specific training. Some people consider this approach as the precursor of the Montessori method. Rousseau was not concerned with specific education techniques, but focused more on the development of character and moral sense. He supposed children learn right and wrong through experiencing the consequences for themselves.
Rousseau was one of the first to advocate for developmentally appropriate education. He divided childhood into stages. His first stage included children up to the age of about 12 and he believed children are generally guided by emotions and impulses. Rousseau stated children from 12 to 16 develop the ability to reason and children 16 and older develop into adults. Rousseau encouraged young males, such as myself, should learn a manual trade to facilitate creativity and allow us to contribute to society.

According to Rousseau, men and women are fundamentally different and therefore must be educated differently. He believed men should be strong, active and educated to govern themselves. Miss Sophie already eloquently explained her roles and responsibilities, so I will not further elaborate on those.

I am interested in your opinions on the role of education and the development of character. Do you believe this is an important part of education? How should morals and character be developed? Additionally, what are your thoughts on developmentally appropriate education? How do you feel about my developmental stages?