from the practical level to the theoretical. The theory of educa-
tion is a matter about which responsible people disagree. Al-
though there is no consensus about the nature and purpose of
education, there is hope that thoughtful persons can gain some
insight through reasonable dialog.

As a culture, we are not very reflective. We are more concerned
with actions and results than with theory, with "how" rather
than "why." This prejudice has been detrimental to the educa-
tional enterprise. Charles Silberman claims that our educational
milieu suffers from "mindlessness," charging that it uncritically
prizes technique over understanding and progress over goals. ³
Modern educators have been so busy developing new instru-
ments for measuring intelligence and aptitude, exploring crea-
tive methods for teaching mathematics to elementary schoolchil-
dren and seeking more efficient ways to complete a college
degree that they have seldom stopped to ask why such things are
desirable.

Few have addressed the larger meaning of education. Law-
rence Cremin points this out, writing of the United States but
making a statement which is widely true in the West:

Too few educational leaders in the United States are genuinely
preoccupied with educational issues because they have no
clear ideas about education. And if we look at the way these
leaders have been recruited and trained, there is little that
would lead us to expect otherwise. They have too often been
managers, facilitators, politicians in the narrowest sense. They
have been concerned with building buildings, balancing
budgets, and pacifying parents, but they have not been pre-
pared to spark a great public dialogue about the ends and
means of education. And in the absence of such dialogue,
large segments of the public have had, at best, a limited under-
standing of the ways and wherefores of popular schooling. ⁴

-14-