Paul Thomas looks at essentialism and how it relates to the science of reading movement.
I am prepping for teaching the third time in my department an introduction to educational philosophy where I ask students to explore education policy and discourse, unpacking those for the beliefs driving them.
At about midterm, we have covered the primary educational philosophies to prepare them for a major project over the second half of the course. When we cover Essentialism, I note that this philosophy drives current reading and education reform in several English-speaking countries, notably the “Science of Reading” (SOR) and “Science of Learning” (SOL) movements.
Essentialism is summarized in this online, open-access text on educational philosophies (see 3.2) as follows:
Essentialism adheres to a belief that a core set of essential skills must be taught to all students. Essentialists tend to privilege traditional academic disciplines that will develop prescribed skills and objectives in different content areas as well as develop a common culture. Typically, Essentialism argues for a back-to-basics approach on teaching intellectual and moral standards [emphasis added]. Schools should prepare all students to be productive members of society. The Essentialist curriculum focuses on reading, writing, computing clearly and logically about objective facts concerning the real world. Schools should be sites of rigor where students learn to work hard and respect authority. Because of this stance, Essentialism tends to subscribe to tenets of Realism. Essentialist classrooms tend to be teacher-centered in instructional delivery with an emphasis on lecture and teacher demonstrations.
Key beliefs of Essentialism advocate for basic skills instruction in core courses (notably reading and math), teacher-centered direct instruction, and conservative cultural norms.
Dozens of social media posts each day by SOR and SOL advocates express Essentialism under the guise of “science.” (See here for example.)
Often Essentialist movements are popularly labeled “back-to-basics” movements, raising some problems for these arguments since calls for back-to-basics have existed in cycles reaching well back into the early decades of the twentieth century in the US. [1] Calls for the idealized past of these cycles ignore that in that past there were advocates calling for back-to-basics also.