Radical Education: A Critique of Freeschooling and Deschooling

by Robin Barrow

This volume is a comprehensive critique of the radical tradition in educational theory. It traces the development of the key ideas in radical literature from Rousseau to the present day. Two opening chapters set Rousseau's educational views and arguments in their political perspective, and subject them to an extended critical treatment. Subsequent chapters provide detailed analyses and examination of the ideas of A S Neill, Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich and Everett Reimer, Charles Weingartner and Neil Postman. Each author is treated separately but certain common themes and ideas are extracted and considered without reference to any particular author. Amongst others, the concepts of nature, learning, hidden curriculum and the relativity of knowledge are examined; at the same time broader arguments about the degree and nature of freedom that should be provided to children, deschooling and assessment are pursued.

Genres: Education

207 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1978

Reviews

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

About a third of the book is about people and concepts from before the mandatory schooling. Only the last chapter is really about what would resemble current Free schooling and De schooling. The text itself is ridiculous, as Barrow accuses Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner of the straw man fallacy using precisely the straw man fallacy.

Overall the text is not only quite pointless, but also old and it hasn't dated well. And for a book first published in 1978, having this as the first review and rating in 2018, 40 years later, should be a mark of the relevance of Robin Barrow.

[Joey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've been reading a lot of pedagogy and unschooling writings at the moment, and I thought it might be useful to get the other perspective.

Barrow's book isn't in any way a defence of conventional schooling. Really all it is, is a criticism of the arguments made by Rousseau, A S Neill, Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich and Everett Reimer. He makes a good case that Rousseau and Neill may be inspirational writers but they're not coherent ones. Goodman comes a bit better off, but education isn't even his main focus. Barrow is unable to engage directly with Illich (which is a shame as he's the more interesting figure) but instead tackles his approach via Reimer. The discussion is good for drawing out some weaknesses in their positive conceptualisations, but overall Barrow doesn't put forward any kind of compelling counter-case.

The book itself is also strangely laid out, with other writers obliquely mentioned as if there were whole sections that didn't make the cut. It convinced me it probably wasn't worthwhile reading A S Neill, so might have saved me some time, but otherwise not masses to recommend here.