Let's talk more about what we think education is about

[Deborah Konecny]

This morning I was working on a blog entry for the Toronto Development Community Institute. I got on Youtube to search for a piece on Paolo Freire on literacy and oppression. I ended up watching this piece. I think it continues on beautifully with the dialogue Daniel Shirley started yesterday. Take 5 minutes to watch it and let's start talking about what education means to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgdVCnTTqXA

[Sheila Stewart]

Thanks for posting, Deborah! Yes, it relates well to some of the topics/questions we heard at the conference!

[Anthony Wright]

Hi Deborah,

I am new to this venue of discourse so forgive me if I am stating nothing new. My background is philosophy (ethics) and political theory. I am unfamiliar with Paolo Freire but now intend to read his book. The issue that stood out for me in the youtube video is the lack of a "political and moral imperative" in our education system. I will restrict my observations to schools in Ontario. Like Henry Gioux in the ‘60’s (in the youtube video), our political leaders seems to lack the ability to justify the need for our society to move in a direction that fosters a greater respect for individual autonomy in our education system.

What is the purpose of our education system: To create workers or to provide the tools to enable our children to become self-sufficient and self-determining (i.e., autonomous)? I support the latter view. But here is the crux of the problem: Our education system is focused on producing workers.

There has been inadequate public debate on the value of individual autonomy and this has led to a dominant utilitarian model of education. It seems to be the norm in our society to associate autonomy with an absolutist view of freedom, which social chaos and anarchy has become associated. And yet, the founding principle of a liberal-democracy is respect for individual autonomy. Within that humanistic notion of autonomy lies the importance of self-knowledge which is achieved by understanding the world in which we interact. This is the view that I support here.

Institutionalized education has helped to eliminate illiteracy but it has failed to succeed at installing a love for learning. We learn not to become a better worker but to become a better person and indirectly we and our society become wealthier for it. There can be a balanced view between utilitarian principles (i.e., support for social programs that produce the greatest good) while maintaining respect for individual autonomy. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Respect for individual autonomy does not necessarily endorse as a given an aggregate view of individuals in our society to the extent that it erodes the justification for our social institutions if we employ a principle of justice. The biggest obstacle in a multidisciplinarian approach is that it is often demands more resources. So your question is two-fold: What is the purpose of education and what value do we attach to education? More to the point: What value do we place on being autonomous?

[Sheila Stewart]

I really like what you have shared here, Anthony. I am going to mull this over some more, and as you have said/suggested, our education system is focused on producing workers. So for now, I would like to put the question "out there", why might the education system be focused on producing workers?

[Anthony Wright]

I apologize. I am eager to read other people's contributions but Sheila's question really got me thinking and I wanted to share my thoughts.

I think that Sam’s blog – “the Purpose of Education – Revised” is a valuable contribution to this discussion because he raises the question of what it is that we “need to become”.

But I would like to address Sheila’s Stewart’s question (Why might the education system be focused on producing workers?) here. I think the question is an excellent one because it helps us clarify our answer to the primary question: what is the purpose of education?

At its most basic level, ‘work’, generally speaking, I would define as the act of producing something and in an active sense is the means by which we obtain the things we need to satisfy our bodily requirements for subsistence. We need to work in order to survive. As our society has evolved so has our notion of the type of ‘work’ available but fundamentally the reason to work is still the same: to meet our basic needs. To this end, I would propose that our education might be focused on giving our students the skills they need to be able to ‘work’ in today’s society. But this raises the question: Do we work to live or do we live to work? Is it the responsibility of our education system to give our students the means to ‘live’ (i.e., the active sense of living – what we ‘need to become’)?

I would speculate that our education ‘system’ has focused on producing workers instead of fostering an environment that would provide the resources to help our students obtain what they ‘need to become’ in part due to a perception of inherent weaknesses of the welfare argument - grossly stated: each individual should have the right to advance their own welfare. The counter argument is that we cannot create programs with an aim to satisfy people’s individual ‘needs’ (i.e., welfare) because those needs can vary too dramatically and this can lead to a tragedy of the commons. Instead, our education ‘system’ proposes we accept a rationing principle that is based on achieving some universal degree of equality in our society for our students. However, now we need to define what is ‘some degree of equality’ in order to know if our education ‘system’ is achieving this purpose. This is a question I think can be addressed another day.

If we work to live and living entails more than work (i.e., the need to become), taking into consideration that people’s needs are different, are we willing to agree that the most common need amongst humans is choice: the ability to choose between various course of actions of our own creation or those of others and the ability to not choose any? Are we also willing to accept that the tool that we all need to develop (students and community members alike) in order to satisfy our ‘need to become’ is the ability to think critically? The ability to choose the correct action for ourselves requires the ability to think critically, that is, the ability to be able to weigh the merits of the various options presented to us or that we create and the ability to be able to postpone gratification in order to accomplish long term personal goals. If the ability to think ‘critically’ provides all of us with some degree of equality, is this, then, not the purpose of our education system?

If this is the purpose of our education system then the question is: Does our education system produce critical thinkers? Are the two (worker and critical thinker) not compatible?

[Deborah Konecny]

Paulo Freire spoke of education in this way: "Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world."

I think that we seriously need to sit down and look at the world to see what parts of it we want to pass along to our children and what parts we think need to be challenged - like consumerism and living to work.

I personally think it would be amazing to be educating in a way that brought about transformation in the form of students who are critical thinkers and creative beings.

[Sheila Stewart]

Good ideas here. Glad my question got you thinking, Anthony. And now with your related one:
"Do we work to live or do we live to work? Is it the responsibility of our education system to give our students the means to ‘live’ (i.e., the active sense of living – what we ‘need to become’)? Good one.

I guess I also asked my question in a leading way. I wondered about how much education is now being focused (driven) on producing good workers that will benefit the economy, as opposed to producing good learners to benefit the world. We often hear that we may not even know what the work force may require in the future, so would it not be best to be prepared for anything-kind of thing? It shifts the focus to what Deborah has stated then, "critical thinkers and creative beings". Or is it about supporting the different paths that one needs "to become". The compatibility question is a good one to ponder some more. Finding a balance too maybe. I think there is so much about this on this site. Have you both listened to "Sir Ken's" video?

[Anthony Wright]

Thanks, Sheila for the suggested video of Sir Ken. I enjoyed it.

It seems that all three of us are preaching to the converted. I think that this is an issue that should be discussed but in a larger forum such as a Townhall Meeting or a televised discussion. The general topic could be: Where do we want to go as a society and how do we get there?

There is creativity in math and the sciences, as much as there is in the arts. So I don't think that we are talking about what should be taught as much as we are talking about how these subjects should be taught. We also have to look at the behaviours that we are promoting in our students. Do we want students that are confident, curious, imaginative, that have a good work ethic but know how and when to play, that will hold authority figures accountable, that have leadership qualities, that are self-determined, that have an entrepreneurial spirit, and that are respectful of others and tolerant of their differences? I think these qualities are the kind of qualities that would make both our students and the membership of our society richer.

A lot of people (sorry, people I talk to or read about) seem to agree that these are the general qualities that we should be promoting in our school system and that they are being promoted in an extremely mediocre way, such as the Character Dev't Initiative. But is it the nature of the beast that all large institutions are wasteful? Maybe we need to be thinking smaller and not bigger and we need to re-think our present obsession with amalgamations and the belief in the economy of scale? Maybe our schools were not meant to be able to be everything for everyone. Maybe the very structre of our public education system needs to be reconsidered. But the biggest hurdle we have to get over is that fact that our public education system has become a government sponsored daycare that enables both parents to work and now many parents are dependent on it to enable them to work and, generally, any restructuring will have an impact on everyone.

[Gay Stephenson]

Wow - I just read through all your posts and you guys are really thinking! I'm not sure if everyone (all people) would ever be able to agree on the purpose of education. But wouldn't it be great if we could agree on a set of general principles? I don't know if even this is possible, but perhaps it would give us a new place to start. And it would have to be relatively short in order to build consensus.

Could one principle be that we educate our young to become critical thinkers? I believe that it is really important that we teach our children to be able to make decisions. Part of that is done at home, giving them more and more responsibility over decisions that affect their lives as they grow. By the time they leave home to work, continue their schooling or take an apprenticeship, they can feel some growing confidence in making up their own minds. Critical thinking enhances that immensely.

Anthony, I think you are correct that we need to look at the behaviours we are promoting in our students. Sometimes we don't notice that we are trying to teach one thing, but doing another. I can think of many examples of this. But speaking from personal experience, I know that when I am immersed in something, I often find it more difficult to notice those contradictions. And I appreciate having my eyes opened, as long as it's done in a considerate way!

[Anthony Wright]

Hi Gay,

My bias is that our education system should be about producing critical thinkers. I hold this view largely because I think it promotes the greatest possibility for self-determination. I also agree with you that we need to learn to be considerate of others. I think that learning to be respectful and tolerant of others is in part how we promote other people's self-determination and our own in an environment of mutual respect. Is this what you mean by "in a considerate way"?

In my last reply I stop in midstream of thought. I was late to pick up my son. The point that I was trying to make with regards to the criticism of our present education system and the problems of the average Canadian family is that any change to our education system should involve everyone (i.e., parents, community members, educators, etc.) because any substantial change would have an impact on everyone. I think that the prospect of having a discussion on the direction that we want our society to go in would be very exciting and extremely beneficial to our society. However, talking about change and implementing it is seldom easy. As Gay observes, many people will probably have an opinion on what the purpose of education shoud be. Nonetheless, It is a discussion that we should have. Opportunities like this blog are definitely a step in the right direction to achieving this end but I think it would be great to be able to reach a larger population.

So, here is my suggestion: In some schools they have a public speaking competition. There is usually a theme. Does People for Education sponsor public speaking or essay competitions in schools? Why not have students from grades 4 - 12 compete to either write an essay or give a speech on the topic - What is the purpose of a public education? These types of excercises often indirectly (if not directly) get parents involved and through public dissemination of the winning essays, etc., the general public's interest might be caught as well. For instance, have the winner's essay published in local newspapers or carried on local news, etc.. Just suggestions. Maybe People for Education have been sponsoring these types of activities already?

[Mike Hunt]

Brilliant idea Anthony! What a great way for "People For Education" to reach out and engage the greater whole and its inherent diversity while including the students who represent the future, and giving everyone a voice in a considered and considerate fashion! Actually giving "the people" a voice in education and maybe seeing things with some very fresh eyes and coming up with some great/novel ideas ..... Sometimes those who are too close can no longer see the forest for the trees. We all know how that works .... :) Maybe there could be a fund raiser for prizes for the best essays? Maybe it could go out to all school boards across the province ....
Maybe P4E has a database of school councils, etc. and could do an e-mail campaign to encourage participation .... maybe maybe maybe ....

Anthony Wright said:

Hi Gay,

My bias is that our education system should be about producing critical thinkers. I hold this view largely because I think it promotes the greatest possibility for self-determination. I also agree with you that we need to learn to be considerate of others. I think that learning to be respectful and tolerant of others is in part how we promote other people's self-determination and our own in an environment of mutual respect. Is this what you mean by "in a considerate way"?

In my last reply I stop in midstream of thought. I was late to pick up my son. The point that I was trying to make with regards to the criticism of our present education system and the problems of the average Canadian family is that any change to our education system should involve everyone (i.e., parents, community members, educators, etc.) because any substantial change would have an impact on everyone. I think that the prospect of having a discussion on the direction that we want our society to go in would be very exciting and extremely beneficial to our society. However, talking about change and implementing it is seldom easy. As Gay observes, many people will probably have an opinion on what the purpose of education shoud be. Nonetheless, It is a discussion that we should have. Opportunities like this blog are definitely a step in the right direction to achieving this end but I think it would be great to be able to reach a larger population.

So, here is my suggestion: In some schools they have a public speaking competition. There is usually a theme. Does People for Education sponsor public speaking or essay competitions in schools? Why not have students from grades 4 - 12 compete to either write an essay or give a speech on the topic - What is the purpose of a public education? These types of excercises often indirectly (if not directly) get parents involved and through public dissemination of the winning essays, etc., the general public's interest might be caught as well. For instance, have the winner's essay published in local newspapers or carried on local news, etc.. Just suggestions. Maybe People for Education have been sponsoring these types of activities already?

[Deborah Konecny]

I love the idea of doing conversation cafes http://instdev.concordia.ca/ourprograms/universityofthestreetscafe/ or world cafes http://www.theworldcafe.com/ . They are a great way to involve people in a discussion that is important to them. If we set up a format we could share it with interested folks across the province and have them send in highlights to us to amass ideas on it.

I love the idea of questions that keep the conversations proactive about the kind of society/education system we want instead of being reactive to changes, cuts, etc. Those conversations are important too but they end up in a different place then what I believe we are interested in. (by we I mean those following this thread or participating in this discussion.)

deborah

[Deborah Konecny]

Sorry folks:

I did not understand how to edit my response although I did see I had 13 minutes left to do so ;)

I think the idea of sponsoring some kind of public speaking project would be great. I think that the Grade 10 Civics course is under utilized for such things. Maybe this is a place to start?

deborah