Long gone are the days of the traditional textbook-based classroom being the only option for education in North America. Varying educational philosophies have always existed, but it is within this century in particular that the development of such philosophies has sprouted an array of educational institutions for young students. Parents have many choices as to what type of school they would like to see their children enrolled in. One such school is the High Mountain Institute with its Rocky Mountain Semester program. After much analyzing, this educational program appears to be based upon a pragmatic philosophy with reconstructionist undertones.

As soon as I read the chapter about pragmatism in our text by Ozmon and Craver, the Rocky Mountain Semester immediately jumped into my head. The more I read of the philosophy the more I felt that this outdoor education program screamed out pragmatism. The main characteristic of the High Institute that seem to echo the principles of pragmatism is the fact that the emphasis is on experiential education. Our class textbook describes that human experience is the central ingredient of the pragmatist philosophy. Based on the program information; it appears that about half of the semester is based upon 'learning through doing'. The students engage in problem solving activities, and nature studies by actually going out into the wilderness and learning about their subject material through firsthand experience. While discussing this point, it is also important to mention that followers of this philosophy believe that education should take place in a variety of learning environments; not just the traditional classroom. Pragmatists believe that "a variety of elements can be used in educating children, including settings and situations from inside the school to the wider community outside" (148). This program certainly uses a variety of settings and elements by taking the students into the great outdoors for a great part of the semester. They get a bit of the traditional atmosphere in the formal classes at the lodge, but they also then get to put their ideas to work in a natural setting. There is a mixture of traditional learning and 'discovery learning' (which is also a pragmatic idea) in the Rocky Mountain Semester.

While examining the curriculum information, I also noticed that all of the courses are basically arranged around a core theme of 'the environment'. To me, it seems as though pragmatism was the first philosophy that promoted the idea of holistic learning and integrated themes. It also states in the brochure that the school was created based upon "intellectual curiosity and the natural world". Several times in our textbook it describes how Dewey felt that "Nature is what we experience, and we must view our experience in terms of its natural connections" (132). It seems as though this is what the Rocky Mountain Semester examines, our connections with the natural world.

Pragmatism also seems to place an emphasis on aesthetic development because such activity is "so fulfilling and engaging that there is no distinction of self and object in it". Dewey believed that such an occurrence is human experience at its highest point (139). There are many opportunities at the High Institute for such aesthetic development to occur. Activities such as hiking, fishing, and mountain climbing are far from tedious, yet they present fantastic learning opportunities. They would present students with enjoyable experiences, self-satisfaction, as well as develop an appreciation for nature. I am sure that students leaving this program would view nature in a way they had taken for granted before. This all falls into the aesthetic domain which pragmatism seems to encourage. When taking all of the above mentioned into account it is clear how Dewey's belief that education should never become routinized and lethargic comes into play. How could students ever tire of a program that presents so many varied settings and activities?

Another point that seems heavy on the pragmatic side is how the school emphasizes a simple lifestyle. By getting back to the basics with nature and learning about how fragile the ecosystems are, the students are quick to learn the consequences of taking the environment for granted. By coexisting with the natural world for an entire semester, and learning how to treat their surroundings with respect, it is highly unlikely that these students will return home and throw wild parties in the forests in which they litter the grounds with debris. The students will have formed a strong bond with nature and would most likely speak out against any that did treat it with disrespect. Pragmatists believe that "we need to make persons aware of their consequences of their actions so they may guide their actions more intelligently, whether this action is at the personal or societal level" (147). I believe that this school does that. I also think that this is where reconstructionist undertones begin to surface.

Another main point that needs to be considered is the program's emphasis on problem solving skills. It seems as though many of the outdoor activities encourage the use of critical thinking as the directors "believe that solving problems and applying new skills first hand lead to powerful intellectual growth". "Pragmatists are concerned with teaching children how to solve problems, they feel that real-life situations encourage problem-solving ability in a practical setting" (150). This is exactly what the Rocky Mountain semester does; it puts the students into real life situations of surviving in the great outdoors. It is impossible not to use problem-solving skills in this sort of situation. The groups that travel through the forests during the outdoor portion are small so they are forced to work together and problem solve; it is harder for students to rely on others when the numbers are so small. Everybody has to work together. Dewey believed that "helping the child to think and do becomes education as opposed to mere training" (146). It is easy for a child to sit in a classroom listening to the teacher dictate information about the environment and then regurgitate this information when it comes to exam time, but they are actually learning to think for themselves in a natural setting. They are not simply following instructions, they are learning how to do things on their own which is encouraging personal development; another point the pragmatists stress.

The idea of working together cooperatively in a group leads me to discuss another aspect in the Pragmatism chapter that is brought up often: democracy. Dewey stated that "The school, through democratic education, must enhance the interplay of individuality and sociality, the one supporting and enlarging the other, as in an ever-widening spiral" (136). I feel that this program does this. The individual capabilities of the students are nurtured as each are assigned duties, which they themselves are responsible for. Also such activities as fishing is an individual experience. There also seem to be plenty of opportunities in which each student are able to exercise their own personal choice and take control of their own actions. However, the students are also put into a situation in which they quite often need to work together as a group to accomplish their goals. Teamwork and cooperation are key elements of the outdoor program. Each student obtains the chance to work on their leadership skills, as positions seem to be constantly switched. This semester focuses not only on individuality but also on social relations; one is not without the other.

At this point I became extremely confused! Pragmatism or Reconstructionism? The school seemed to me like it could be slotted into both categories! I believe that my confusion was quite understandable because our text book and notes do mention that the two philosophies are basically the same except for the fact that a pragmatic based school is evolutionary when it comes to promoting change, while a reconstructionist school is revolutionary. I really had to sit down and battle it out for awhile trying to decide which end of the scale the High Institute seemed to be leaning towards. I finally decided that the students who attend this school will indeed have a new respect for the environment and they will most likely indeed pass on their acquired ideals to others, but I do not see it as being a revolutionary school. The students are not going around signing petitions about saving the environment as the chapter on reconstructionism suggests, and the teachers are most certainly not social activists or political figures (the chapter also discussed how teachers should be politically involved). The Rocky Mountain program is more of an evolutionary process. In time, if students keep going to schools such as this, attitudes towards the environment would slowly begin to change. It is not a school that will change things overnight! However, the idea that the school is based upon the 'deep ecology' philosophy suggests that perhaps it is on the border between pragmatism and reconstructionism. Although the school may not be viewed as revolutionary today, they may be just testing the waters to see how far they can go. After the school has gained a good reputation, I could see that they might try delving deeper into Naess' beliefs. I came to the conclusion that the school does indeed seem to be pragmatic, but with reconstructionist undertones that perhaps may become more evident in the future.

When it comes to instructors and staff, they all seem to be highly qualified in the areas of environmental and outdoor education. All safety concerns are accounted for with staff who is trained to deal with such emergency situations. The school has obviously put in a great deal of research to find the type of instructors that would maintain the environmental themes that it wishes to build its program upon, but I was surprised at how little the teachers are paid! I would think that if the school wanted to create such a unique curriculum that they would be willing to pay the money to hire experienced teachers. This confused me a little because the teachers seem more than adequate for the school, but why do they work for such little pay? I am making more than that in Vietnam as a first year teacher, in a country where the living expenses are low and I do not have to pay tax. I finally decided that the type of teachers who would want to teach at this school would be more interested in the philosophy behind it then the money they make. I do not mean to stereotype, but many of my friends are so-called environmentalists and they have all taken up low paying jobs just so they can work for a purpose they believe in. I am pretty sure though, that this school must make quite a bit of money because the list of partner schools all sound like private schools to me. I imagine the tuition would be quite high. So where does all the money go then? It certainly seems like the directors could afford to pay the teachers a higher salary. It almost seems to me as though the directors are taking advantage of the fact that those concerned for the environment would be willing to work for cheaper pay. Maybe they pour a great deal of money into their facilities and equipment; I would need more information to determine this, but as it stands, it seems to me as though the teachers are being taken advantage of (although they probably wouldn't see it that way since they are working for a cause they believe in). The matter of low salaries, seemingly high tuition, the caliber of partner schools, and the fact that there seems to be no allowance for special needs students leads me to believe that there is an 'elitist' element involved. Although the actual curriculum of the school may be on the pragmatic end it seems as though their attitude towards teachers and they type of students they take in are quite realist.

After much debate, hair pulling, and book throwing, I finally felt satisfied with my conclusion of the pragmatic school with reconstructionist undertones contradicted by the small realist element that seems to appear when it comes to money and students accepted. Although, this assignment has really made me wonder, with all these types of philosophies and schools that have popped up in the 1900's, what on earth will the 21st century have in store for us?