What is education for?
As both a parent and a governor during this yr'due south GCSE results, I found myself in an odd predicament. Should I be pleased with my son's results considering they were his accomplishment, or considering the school had succeeded in 'adding value'? How did we go into this strange dilemma? A generation agone, there would have been no question. Surely, accomplishment belongs to the pupil, and schools should be measured on their input into that procedure, not the results themselves.
The fact nosotros have become confused nearly this is the result of a powerful narrative which is pressing the educational process out of shape.
A big part of the public word on education focussing around making sure pupils get results which will requite them the skills to compete in the workplace, and in turn hateful that the British economy tin can compete on the world stage. Nosotros use this language so much, that nosotros don't even notice what it implies. 'Competition'. 'Results'. 'Skills.' This is mechanistic approach to education, where the process of learning had get industrialised; pupils are (at the commencement) raw materials which enter the educational automobile, and have components added so at the end they emerge from the process every bit complete contributors to the earth of work. (I was tempted to employ the word 'citizens' here, but such language is besides broad for this industrial model. If they are good citizens, then it is in order that they can contribute more than productively).
If this narrative sounds dehumanising, so that'southward because it is, and this arises from its origins in the industrial revolution, where mass educational activity first started. Merely the controlling value here is utilitarianism, which began as a system of thought by putting man desire and happiness at the centre of decision-making, simply in fact fails because it assumes space human knowledge. Nosotros were given a little glimpse of how dehumanising this kind of thinking actually is by Richard Dawkins last calendar week, in a Twitter exchange about Down's syndrome:
Tweeter: I honestly don't know what I would exercise if I were significant with a kid with Down syndrome. Existent ethical dilemma.
Dawkins:Abort it and try over again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if yous have the choice.
Every bit Krish Kandia pointed out,
Well at to the lowest degree he isn't arguing for a consumeristic situational ideals: 'If you don't fancy raising a child with a genetic abnormality then choose for yourself.'
No, Dawkins has no place for this kind of relativism. He asserts categorically that information technology is immoral. So anyone who has carried a child with Down's syndrome to term and lovingly cared for the child until adulthood and often beyond as many people with Down syndrome do not proceed and alive independently, has been immoral.
And the real problem with this was exposed when Dawkins 'apologised' for what he had said:
If your morality is based, every bit mine is, on a want to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Downwards'due south baby, when y'all have the selection to abort it early in the pregnancy, might really be immoral from the point of view of the child'southward own welfare…
Those who idea I was bossily telling a adult female what to exercise rather than let her choose, of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My truthful intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my ain assessment of the pragmatics of the instance, and my ain moral philosophy which in plow is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
The real problem is…that Dawkins does not run into the trouble—offset, that he is assuming perfect knowledge; 2d, that people are valued on the basis of their usefulness; and, 3rd, that rationality, rather than emotion, is the but way of thinking that counts.
The hubris of bold we know the hereafter was set out in this moving response 'One time I would take agreed with Dawkins. And then my daughter was born with Down's syndrome':
I understand the Professor'southward point of view implicitly. In fact, what he says still makes total logical sense to me…xviii months ago I would fifty-fifty have agreed. The arrival of my daughter with the surprise of having this very condition has shone a lite on the gulf of ignorance, not to mention the factually wrong prejudice underlying this opinion.
I put my hands upwardly to say that, without knowing information technology, our baby has already taught us the virtually groundbreaking lessons of our lives so far, and nosotros would quite literally modify zero about her – peculiarly her genetic profile. It has completely turned on their head my opinions on what success in life looks like and what my aspirations should be for all of our children. I always end up in the same place, happiness and delectation are what ultimately matter, and I know that Rosie volition have those in abundance.
Thanks to her, I believe we'll exist in a improve position to encourage such success for her sister and brother-to-be, unshackled past the notion that success in life is solely linked to academic attainment, careers and coin.
Only this was not the merely comment which made an explicit link betwixt utility, ethics, education and success. Another article from a parent of a child with Down syndrome commented:
As I watched the Twitter debate unfurl, you continued that you would not recommend ballgame for individuals with Autism, say, as they 'contribute' to society, for they are 'enhanced', which, in your view those with Trisomy 21 are not. You lot even went and so far as to say children with Down syndrome 'endure'.
At present hold your horses just one moment Mr Dawkins. I think possibly you are confusing not-essentialist, humanist thinking with a loss of humanity here.
And this article notes the basic fault: surveys testify that people with Downward's Syndrome are actually happier than the population as a whole. The problem is with those who are challenged by their presence in club. Fifty-fifty on its own terms, utilitarianism fails.
At the cease of this second article was a picture show of the author's girl wearing a t-shirt with a profound quotation from Shakespeare'southward Hamlet:
We know what nosotros are, only we know not what we may be. (Hamlet, Human action 4 Scene v)
The great failure of utilitarianism is a presumption to know the future—just the great secret of educational activity is that the time to come holds all sorts of untold possibilities. Mike Higton of Durham University wrote a short theology of higher education a few years ago in a Grove Ethics booklet (and later on a longer book I think). He draws a parallel betwixt the process of education and the telephone call the starting time disciples experienced as they went virtually their business as fishermen on Lake Galilee:
Jesus sees what these 2 men currently are, and calls them to a transformation—to a strange fulfilment of what they are. They are fishermen (halieis), simply he calls them to become fishermen (halieis anthropon: fishers of people, 'fishers of men' in an older translations). Simon and Andrew answer by leaving what they are, and beginning their journeying towards this mysterious fulfilment—towards what they volition be. They become, in that moment, disciples. They become learners. This is already conspicuously not well-nigh their want to accumulate some actress information, or gain some skills. Information technology is about a deep re-making of what they are—a process that will appoint with the selves they are now, and which will lead towards the transfiguration of those selves. They are captivated by the possibility of transformation. (p iv)
I love that phrase: 'captivated past the possibility of transformation'. Alongside factual information that must be learned, pupils need a vision of who they might go as part of the educational process.
Some other powerful vocalisation speaking against utility in teaching is the remarkable Ken Robinson. His talk 'Do schools impale creativity?' is the most watched of any TED lecture, and information technology is worth seeing.
He was on Radio four this forenoon in the first of a curt series 'The Educators', talking with Sarah Montague. Part of the conversation went something like this:
KR: Have yous noticed that all education systems have a hierarchy, with maths at the height, and trip the light fantastic at the lesser—everywhere in the world. Isn't that odd?
SM: Are you suggesting that dance is more than important than maths?
KR: No, I am suggesting that it is as of import.
SM: But we employ maths every of our lives. In every decision, we accept to use maths…
KR: Non the maths we learn at school. Near of u.s.a. never use calculus or algebra. Simply nosotros all utilize our bodies, all the time. Teaching too oft makes pupils physically passive, and we are even medicating children so they tin cope with this. Children are not brains on sticks.
Robinson, who has been in teaching all his life, is not here criticising teachers. Instead, his criticism is aimed at policy makers and ministers 'who are in that location for a moment earlier moving on to another ministerial postal service.' He frequently highlights the fashion that he and others discovered their souvenir and calling through education, and sees this equally vital. (He comments of those who taught him in ways that wonderfully repeat Higton's business relationship of Jesus calling the disciples: 'They saw something in my that I myself had not seen.') It is far from clear that the changes introduced past Michael Gove will make this whatever easier.
In our public discourse nosotros demand to find a new narrative for teaching which focusses non just on the acquisition of skills and knowledge, simply also includes a strong focus on the cocky-discovery of vocation and giftedness—the possibilities of education. This happens in skilful schools with good teachers, but since it is not easily measurable, it does not form office of national policy.
If you notice this blog of value, would you considerbecoming a patron to support my work?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot take valued this postal service, you tin can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin can add real value. Seek first to empathise, and then to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence equally a disharmonize to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-is-education-for/
0 Response to "What is education for?"
Post a Comment