KEYWORDS: Dewey, Tolstoy, Korczak, legacy, humanistic education, similarities and differences, student-centered educators.

ABSTRACT: In this paper a recent Seattle Pacific University graduate and a current schoolteacher is analyzing the ideas of three famous humanistic educators, showing their similarities and differences, and addressing their most important educational principles. Written in a very personal informal manner this paper raises a number of important questions concerning the position of teachers in the society and their attitude to students.

Introduction

I chose to write about John Dewey, Leo Tolstoy, and Janusz Korczak because they inspire me as an educator.  Korczak’s amazing empathy and compassion for children blow me away.  All three of these educators focused on the child, and on the importance of education being relevant to the child.  I think this is just as necessary in today’s world as it was when they first wrote these ideas.  All the other research-based best practices, such as formative assessment, teacher clarity, timely feedback, and classroom discussion are pointless, in my opinion, if the teacher does not care for the child.  The teacher can have 30 iPads loaded with educational software, but it will not amount to much if the student is not the focus.  I think with all of our exciting tools nowadays, it is very important to remind ourselves that the best thing teachers can do is to care for their students and put their needs first.  In that spirit, I will set about examining the similarities, and then differences, between these three incredible educators.

Similarities

First of all, Korczak believed that students must be active in their own education, including in defining what their education should look like.  Joop Berding (2004) wrote that Korczak “invented ways to have children participate in the communities of which they [were] members” (p. 12).  Also, Berding wrote that “Korczak discovered that to speak of ‘education’ in any acceptable fashion meant that the children themselves had to be involved...In Korczak's view, the educational relation is one of partnership, not of power” (Berding, 2004, p. 13).  Korczak (1929) wrote that adults tend to think “We know the way to success; we give directions, advice. We develop virtues, stamp out faults. We guide, correct, train. The child -- nothing. We -- everything” (p. 25).  As such, many teachers spend a lot of time criticizing and disciplining children, to which Korczak replies, “What about our own careless and frivolous grown-ups, selfish gluttons, fools, idlers, rogues, brawlers, cheats, drunkards, and thieves? ...And we dare to blame and accuse?!” (Korczak, 1929, p. 32).  To sum up Korczak’s view, he wrote, “...without the participation of experts we won’t be successful. And the expert is the child” (p. 33).  Dewey seemed to agree with this sentiment.  As Sutinen, Kallioniemi, and Pihlström (2015) wrote, “Dewey understood... Learning is obviously also a natural process that takes place in a continuous transaction of the learner and his or her environment” (p. 333).  Dewey also justified this by writing that action precedes meaning.  As he wrote, a child babbles instinctively, without knowing why, and then the responses given to their babbling give shape the meaning and transform babbling into language.  Thus, Dewey reasoned, schooling should not relegate students to passivity, but should use action as a means.  Tolstoy (2000) also agreed with this, and wrote that learning only really happens when the learner is active.  He wrote that if people have access to theaters, coffee shops, libraries, and book stores, and want to learn, they will learn.  But, if they only have school, they will quickly forget what they learn, since they will find no application in real life.  So, he wrote, “Education goes on quite independently of the schools” (Tolstoy, 2000, p. 11).  All three educators agreed that the student must be active in their own learning.

Second of all, Korczak did not believe there was one formula for a great education.  As Berding (2004) wrote, “Korczak urged educators to find out what works for them, with the children currently in their care, under the present circumstances. His educational methods were experiential, rooted in real life, and interpretative... despite centuries of research and all our knowledge and skills, we stand before a great secret: the child” (p. 15).  Tolstoy similarly argued that no complete theory of knowledge existed, so there is no way an all-encompassing theory of education could be constructed.  So, he wrote, similar to Dewey’s continuum of growth, “the only method of education is experiment...” (Moulin, 2008, p. 347).  Thus, all three educators agreed that there is no one universal method guaranteeing educational success: experimentation is necessary.

Third of all, Korczak believed that education needed to be relevant to students in the present, not just for some future benefit.  Korczak (1929) wrote that many think of children: “The brat. Only a child, a future person, but not yet, not today. He’s just going to be” (p. 27).  With this mindset, teachers educate accordingly.  As Korczak wrote, “We say: a future person, a future worker, a future citizen... No, not at all. They were and they will be... Children account for a large proportion of mankind, a sizeable portion of the population, of the nation, residents, citizens -- constant companions...Is there a life that exists as some joke? No, childhood years are long and important ones in the life of man” (p. 33).  Dewey agreed with this idea.  According to Dewey, “Every citizen in his or her society or community should act in ways which enable them to solve cultural, economic, educational, and other problems creatively” (Sutinen, Kallioniemi, & Pihlström, 2015, p. 338).  Dewey (1897) also wrote “I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.  I believe that the school must represent present life - life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, in the neighborhood, or on the play-ground” (p. 3).  Dewey and Korczak agreed that education must be relevant to students in the present.  

Fourth of all, Korczak (1929) believed that we need to change the role of the teacher.  He wrote that “Rarely are we advisors and comforters; more frequently we serve as stern judges... he does not perceive the child’s efforts to write a page neatly or simply to live one hour of the day...” (Korczak, 1929, p. 30).  Dewey agreed that the teacher’s role needed to change.  He (1897) wrote, “The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences” (p. 4).  Both seemed to see the role of the teacher as more of a coach or facilitator than as the sole arbiter of information.

Fifth of all, Korczak (1929) wrote that teachers need to adjust their instruction and expectations based on each student.  He wrote, “If a teacher is intent on seeking out traits and values which seem to him to be especially valuable, if it is his desire to force everyone into a single mould -- he will be making a big mistake; some will pretend to follow his tenets while others will genuinely heed his suggestions -- for a time. When the real face of the child shows itself, not only the teacher but the child as well will be surely hurt” (p. 31).  Dewey agreed on this point.  As Sutinen, Kallioniemi, and Pihlström (2015) wrote, “The starting point in Dewey’s pedagogical thinking, after his famous book School and Society (1899), is the child’s or the learner’s own activity” (p. 339).  Dewey (1897) explained it in this way: “Without insight into the psychological structure and activities of the individual, the educative process will... be haphazard and arbitrary” (p. 2).  Tolstoy also agreed on this matter.  He believed that the master teacher had to read each individual student to decide on the proper curricular action, which is why he thought teaching to be an art (Tolstoy, 2000, p. 1).  Tolstoy wrote that, “education as a deliberate moulding of people into certain forms is sterile, illegitimate and impossible” (Moulin, 2008, p. 347).  All three educators agreed on the necessity of basing instruction on the child.

Finally, both Korczak and Tolstoy expressed extreme delight in being around children, which seemed to fuel their practice.  They both seemed to highly value the student-teacher relationship.  Tolstoy wrote that a “better question is not how I teach but ‘How is the best relation to be established between given people who want to learn and others who want to teach?’” (Moulin, 2008, p. 347).  It is recorded that “When Tolstoy was with his students, his eyes were wide open; he was amazed and appreciative” (Tolstoy, 2000, p. 3).  Korczak also wrote about what a joy it was to be with his students, and even accompanied them to their death at the Nazi’s hands, rather than leave them alone.  Both educators highly valued the relationships they formed with their students, which I find inspiring.

Differences

Now, I will examine some of the unique aspects of each educator.  On some of these, it was unclear whether an attribute was applicable to only one or many of the educators, so these categories may be imperfect.

Korczak had some distinctive emphases in his writings.   First of all, he highly trusted his students.  For example, when he was a camp counselor, when a younger child was crying, “he sent an older boy to console him: ‘He would do it better than I,’ Korczak said” (Berding, 2004, p. 13).  Secondly, Korczak strongly believed that all students deserved respect: that it was their right.  As Berding (2004) wrote, “Dialogue was, for Korczak, the ultimate means of education and of learning. As he put it: speaking with children, instead of to them” (p. 13).  Korczak (1929) wrote that adults generally believe “It is size and what takes up more space that elicits respect and admiration. Small is equated with ordinary and uninteresting. Little people mean little wants, little joys and sorrows” (p. 23).  Korczak saw that mistreatment of children and worked against it his whole life.  Thirdly, Korczak (1929) recognized repeatedly that a student’s outside world greatly affects how he performs in the classroom.  He wrote that “The child is not a soldier; he does not defend his homeland although he suffers together with it” (p. 27).

John Dewey (1897) also had some distinctive features of his writing.  Firstly, he took a very broad perspective and wrote that all education is essentially growing into social consciousness.  He explained this as “He becomes an inheritor of the funded capital of civilization. The most formal and technical education in the world cannot safely depart from this general process. It can only organize it; or differentiate it in some particular direction” (Dewey, 1897, p. 1).  Secondly, Dewey recognized the need for an education beyond the standards of the day.  Dewey (1897) wrote “With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself” (p. 3).  Those who champion “21st century skills” use almost exactly the same reasoning now that John Dewey used in the 19th century.

Tolstoy also had some distinctive attributes.  First of all, he truly seemed to believe that all children were inherently good on the inside, and that moral taint came from without.  In this he is highly reminiscent of Rousseau.  Tolstoy (2000) wrote, “It’s impossible and absurd to teach and educate a child for the simple reason that the child stands closer than I do -- and than any grown-up does -- to that ideal of harmony, truth, beauty, and goodness to which I, in my pride, wish to raise him... And thus it is my conviction that we cannot teach children... to write and to compose -- particularly artistic works.  All that we need teach them is how to set about writing” (p. 4).  Because of his belief in the inherent goodness and talent within children, Tolstoy thought the educator’s task was just to get them started: they would take care of the rest.  Secondly, Tolstoy alone seemed to directly exhort that teachers need to love their subject matter.  He wrote, “If you wish to educate the student by science, love your science and know it, and the students will love both you and the science...” (Tolstoy, 2000, p. 11).

Conclusion

These three thinkers, Dewey, Tolstoy, and Korczak, certainly had their differences in lives as well as theories.  However, the stronger impression, at least to me, is that they were strongly united around the need to base all of education on the student.  The student needs to be active in the learning process, the teacher should be more of a facilitator than the fountain of knowledge, and the teacher should feel extreme joy in the presence of their students.  On top of that, educators need to realize that no one approach will work for every child.  So, every teacher needs to be willing to find out what works for each student, so that all can succeed.  I am thankful for the inspiring legacy of these compassionate, student-centered educators, and I hope to leave a compassionate and student-centered legacy myself one day. 

References

1. Berding, J. A. (2004). Janusz Korczak. What it Means to Become an Educator. Encounter, 17(4), 11-16. 
2. Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal, 54.
3. Korczak, J. (1929).The Child’s Right to Respect.  Commissioner for Human Rights.  Retrieved from https://canvas.spu.edu/courses/7714/assignments/24620?module_item_id=85906
4. Moulin, D. (2008). Leo Tolstoy the spiritual educator. International Journal Of Children's Spirituality, 13(4), 345-353.
5. Sutinen, A., Kallioniemi, A., & Pihlström, S. (2015). Pedagogical Transaction in Religious
6. Education: Diversified Society and John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education. Religious Education, 110(3), 329-348.
7. Tolstoy, L. (2000). Tolstoy as Teacher: Leo Tolstory’s Writings on Education. B. Blaisdell (Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative.