What Rousseau Got Right

A pre-crawling infant stretches for something beyond reach. You a) bring the object to the infant? b) bring the infant to the object? or c) do nothing?

Dewey, Hirsch, Freire. Maybe Socrates and Mann. These are often the names associated with the greatest thinking and writing on education. Jean-Jacque Rousseau is often not included in this pantheon in spite of writing "Emile," one of the most thorough treatises on the subject of educating a human being from birth to adulthood. There are valid criticisms that I will not raise here. If you are unaware of them, I encourage you to read "Emile" and see if you can generate them! What I will suggest here is that Rousseau got at least one thing right that I fear more and more are getting wrong in modern education: we have a duty to help our charges estimate distances and become the agents of traversing them.

By distance, I mean not simply physical distance as Rousseau perhaps metaphorically refers to it when he first broaches the subject. I mean a distance measured by the effort required to attain any object or state or condition and the one who desires it. In terms of the practical work of teachers, we could easily transfer this to the effort required by a student to demonstrate proficiency of a skill or perhaps even merely earn a grade. When the student themselves puts effort into the required actions, we call this "agency." There is no controversy about the value of agency in modern education. It's a word often paired with other academically virtuous ones such as "choice" and "student-centered." And yet there are so many practices and mindsets that I hear in education discourse and witness first hand that run counter these values, perhaps driven by other motivations.  

Rousseau writes:

    "...he stretches out his hand indifferently to seize an object which touches him or is a hundred paces     from him. The effort he makes in doing this appears to you a sign of domination, an order he gives the object to come nearer, or to you to bring it to him. It is nothing of the kind. It means only that.....he does not conceive of any distance beyond his reach. Be careful, then, to walk often with him, to transport him from one place to another, to let him feel the change of position, and, in this way to teach him how to judge distances. When he begins to know them, change the plan; carry him only when it is convenient for him to do so, and not wherever it pleases him. For as soon as he is no longer deceived by the sense, his attempts arise from another cause."

Rousseau continues:

    "When the child stretches forth his hand with an effort, but without a sound, he thinks he can reach some object, because he does not properly estimate its distance; he is mistaken. But if, while stretching out his hand, he complains and cries, he is no longer deceived as to the distance. He is commanding the object to come to him, or is directing you to bring it to him. In the first case, carry him to the object slowly, with short steps; in the second case do not even appear to understand him. It is worthwhile to habituate him early not to command people, for he is not their master; nor thing, for they cannot understand him. So when a child wants something he sees...it is better to carry him to the object than to fetch the object to him."

In what ways might some practices in education violate Rousseau's suggestion and harm the development of the child? These are offered in no implied order of occurrence or severity.

1) Who's holding the pencil? When tutoring students, it's easy and quick to write things on the board or even in their notebook. Teachers in a hurry or feeling their planning period disappear may default to this to speed things up. But writing reinforces thinking. It should be obvious that a student who is actively writing, has made the decision to write, is at least thinking about what they are writing. Consider: can you tell the difference between a student who is attending to what you write and a student who is doing no thinking whatsoever as you write? 

Holding the pencil places the student in the passive role. It suggests that the student is not the source of generating ideas. It tells the student that by showing up, they can expect something to be provided rather than there is something to be actively acquired. The student may have covered the physical distance, but not the effort distance.

2) Who creates notes in class?  I appreciate that many students will lose track of what's being said if they pause to write notes while discussion continues. To me, this does not suggest that notes should be given, rather that time should be allowed for students to write down what is being discussed and learned. Even taking a picture of the board and noting reflections on what is there involves an active brain. Teachers focused on a student-centered classroom should recognize this. The acquisition of knowledge isn't done when the discussion or lecture ends, rather when the student has begun to synthesize those ideas, perhaps in the form of notes. Providing learning guides, guided notes, class notes, etc. render the child passive and unable to judge "distance," as Rousseau might call it.

Expecting students to create notes also creates the expectation that when a student comes for help that they do so with something they have created in hand. I'm sure many teachers are familiar with the student who shows up for help on an idea or a math problem and has brought neither an example nor notes to the conversation. What is such a student expecting? What have they learned about the process of learning? The student must have a role besides walking into the room! The student must have something to DO there!

3) Where/when is help given? Many schools now offer or are considering offering an "office hours" period of the school day. The expectation is that teachers are available and students can go for extra help. My experience and what I hear from educators is that students are not using this time well. It's not hard to imagine that they frequently use this time for face-to-face socialization with their peers, not a pointless or unnecessary activity. But also not the purpose of this time. Instead, students sometimes suggest that they could come to your planning period if they have a study hall. Even worse is the suggestion that you travel to their study hall. The student must be the mover. Rousseau is clear on this again, as a failure to learn distance.

Expecting the teacher to go to the student, perhaps under the guise of "creating relationships," creates exactly the wrong relationship! 

Consider a student who is allowed to be passive in all three cases. The student takes no notes in class, has nothing to reflect on, is unable to translate in-class learning to out-of-class practice. The student does not come to office hours, rather the teacher go the student in study hall. Perhaps in response to an email from the student. "...he stretches out his hand...". The teacher then does the work of synthesizing what was done in class while the student remains passive yet again, not even budging to lift a pen or write anything themselves, perhaps offering an "Oh, now I get it! Yes, thank you!" The student has become a "commander" or a "master" affirming the well trained servant-"teacher."

Bringing the learning to the child denies the student agency, creates a dependence on the so-called teacher, and enables the stunting of the child's development as an independent learner. We must always ask and expect the learner to be the mover, the pen holder, and the synthesizer of learning. Rousseau knew this and said it well in "Emile." We would be wise to consider his words more often!

**I welcome other examples or counter-arguments!