Are we asking the wrong question??
I been reading through two education focused books recently.
- Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind
- Clayton Christensen’s Disrupting Class
The combination of reading the two books side by side got me thinking again about part of the education reform debate that keeps bugging me. And until now I hadn’t been able to put my finger on it. I think in the whole education debate we’ve been starting out with the wrong question. The current question is “How can we reform, improve our system of education today?”
Here is the question I think we need to start with and I’d be interested in your thoughts regarding the answer: “What is the purpose of education?” I think we’ve been operating under the wrong answer to that question for more than a century now, namely that education is to produce people, who are good workers and who can keep America competitive in the “global marketplace.” To me there is something wholly incomplete in that definition of what the purpose of education is.
I’d be interested in your thoughts.
David said,
May 29, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
The purpose of Education (as in - our established education system) is to produce people who are good workers etc. which is exactly why its failing. The purpose of education (generic) is to provide a foundation of skills (”Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmatic” anyone?) and an understanding of how to find answers to the unpredictable questions and challenges that we will face throughout our lives.
No amount of classroom time will fully prepare anyone for any job. In the end on the job training is the only kind that works. A good education which has truly taught students how to meet challenges and get answers to questions makes it so that their OJT will be faster and more effective because they will know how to learn.
Lyall said,
May 29, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
David,
I would argue that your generic definition still falls short of the true purpose of education. It’s too one dimensional. A wise man once said, “If we only educate the mind, all we’re really doing is educating a bunch of clever devils.”
Does there not have to be in the definition of the purpose of education a component that deals with the educating of the heart which is inherently a spiritual and moral matter?
David said,
May 29, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
I would agree with you, but that agreement would be dependent on defining what we mean by education. If you are talking about education as can be attempted through a community institution (whether that’s public, private, or charter schools) then I would argue that such a setting can never truly provide an education of the heart. As an inherently spiritual and moral matter, the education of the heart can only take place in the setting of home.
Church can help, and schools can serve as an opportunity to implement the moral principles that are being taught in the home, but the schools can only enforce justice (meaning that they curb bullying and other immoral behaviors), they cannot dispense an education of the heart. Even if that were their focus the real education in that area would have to come from the home.
Lyall said,
May 29, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
David,
If we are talking about public schools currently, then I agree with your assessment that the education of the heart is impossible. But my wife and I found a school were I see educating the heart and mind happening with our daughter. We searched high and low in Utah, Salt Lake and Davis counties for a school that created this kind of environment and had found a way to integrate a great classic liberal education of the mind with the education of the heart. In fact, I would define the classic liberal education of people like the founders of this country as education rooted in a fundamental belief that education had to reach the heart or it wasn’t really education.
I think you are too skeptical of a teachers ability to reach a child’s heart, which we should expect from our educational institutions.
David said,
May 29, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
What school is that? (and do you think they would be successful at the education of the heart if you were not teaching the moral issues at home?)
I believe that teachers can reach the hearts of children but I do not believe that a teacher can effectively teach those lessons to a dozen kids that they only see for 30 hours a week. They have to have help from the parents and it is the responsibility of the parents to teach that education. You may be able to delegate the responsibility to teach the mind, but you can’t delegate the responsibility to teach the things of the heart.
Right, Left, or Straight » Pursuit of Liberty said,
May 29, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
[…] Who is right? join the discussion by commenting here or there. […]
Connor said,
May 30, 2008 @ 10:56 am
My definition of education might differ from my neighbor’s. Creating one homogenous flavor of education is harmful for diversity, specialization, and excellence.
This is one of the main reasons why the Dept. of Education is so atrocious. A few bureacrats get to decide policies that affect almost every child in the nation. The Prussian-style of education is more concerned with social engineering than it is with true education.
I don’t think it’s necessarily important to define education. Rather, the power to decide just what education is should be left up to our children’s true educators—their parents.