So what are some of the different views on the purpose of education, and what might adopting or discarding these ideas mean for the education of New Zealand children? Martin Luther King, Jr. suggested that the first function of education is to teach learners to think intensively. A reporter conducting research in a Los Angeles high school in the mid-1980s argued that “A human being who has not been taught to think clearly is a danger in a free society”.
Similarly, John F. Kennedy noted the relationship between the ability to think critically about civic affairs and the strength of a democracy. King went one step further and added that education should also support moral development. “Education without morals”, King argued, “is like a ship without a compass, merely wandering nowhere. It is not enough to have the power of concentration, but we must have worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.”
The topic of morality is difficult to untangle, and with so many things said to comprise morality in the 21st century, it is unlikely that a consensus can be reached anymore. That doesn’t stop many schools delving into areas that impact on morality with gusto! However, is morality an area schools should be wading into though? Are teachers equipped to do so? And what role do families play in moral instruction?
Back to King, who hoped that education would “teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.” Perhaps the jury is still out on what sorts of characters our current system is producing.
John Dewey and Carl Rogers argued that education should be relevant. While it is hard to conceive why anyone would wish it to be irrelevant, Dewey, Rogers and others believed that no one should ever have to learn something they think is irrelevant. These ideas have supported the rise of ‘child-led learning’ and student choice about what one might (or might not) learn. How, though, does a child determine what is or isn’t relevant, when that child has little or no knowledge of the material to be learned, nor any experience of how that material might apply in their future?
For example, can a young child in kindergarten, who is just learning the alphabet, truly appreciate how valuable it is to learn those symbols in their arbitrary order, and the lifelong access to a range of skills learning the alphabet will afford? Does the child learn the alphabet because they think it’s relevant, or do they learn the alphabet because they are told to by adults who know how important it is to learn it?
The argument about education being relevant has spread, most notably in relation to ethnicity. While it is important to recognise different cultural knowledge, experiences, and worldviews, such thinking has led, for example, to classical music programmes being cancelled for Pacific children, because classical music is not relevant to Pacific children. Classical music may not be part of a traditional Pacific musical heritage, but we must ask: “Should education open doors to a wider world, or should it paint a child into his or her own little corner?.”
Throughout history, schools have been used to bring about social change. The general idea is teachers aren’t there just to transmit knowledge to students, but rather to condition students to want a different kind of society. Examples of this in the 21st century are rife, with even primary school children taking (or receiving) a view on things like capitalism and climate change. In many cases, these are complex issues that the most intelligent in our society have yet to wholly understand. Thomas Sowell argued that teaching such things to children is like telling people how to perform surgery when they don’t understand the basics of anatomy or hygiene. While it is important for children to engage in current affairs and issues that affect society, perhaps we need to ensure we get the basics right first so that they can properly engage with these issues. Sowell also argued that education should give students intellectual tools like literacy and numeracy, and teach them to analyse and reach conclusions based on logic and evidence. That would seem to me to be a good place to start (together with ensuring children actually attend school). This approach would help to improve the terrible outcomes that too many New Zealand children are experiencing.
Those who are shifting the focus away from the basics of education pay no price for being wrong. Rather, that price is paid by those children who rely on a good education to improve their lot in life. In other words, the price is paid by those who can least afford to pay it. For that reason alone, we owe it to New Zealand children to be firm about the purpose of education, and that’s to provide, at the most basic level, children with strong literacy and numeracy skills, and the ability to actually think.
Dr Melissa Derby, Senior Lecturer at The University of Waikato. This article was originally published by The Common Room and is published here with kind permission.
Similarly, John F. Kennedy noted the relationship between the ability to think critically about civic affairs and the strength of a democracy. King went one step further and added that education should also support moral development. “Education without morals”, King argued, “is like a ship without a compass, merely wandering nowhere. It is not enough to have the power of concentration, but we must have worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.”
The topic of morality is difficult to untangle, and with so many things said to comprise morality in the 21st century, it is unlikely that a consensus can be reached anymore. That doesn’t stop many schools delving into areas that impact on morality with gusto! However, is morality an area schools should be wading into though? Are teachers equipped to do so? And what role do families play in moral instruction?
Back to King, who hoped that education would “teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.” Perhaps the jury is still out on what sorts of characters our current system is producing.
John Dewey and Carl Rogers argued that education should be relevant. While it is hard to conceive why anyone would wish it to be irrelevant, Dewey, Rogers and others believed that no one should ever have to learn something they think is irrelevant. These ideas have supported the rise of ‘child-led learning’ and student choice about what one might (or might not) learn. How, though, does a child determine what is or isn’t relevant, when that child has little or no knowledge of the material to be learned, nor any experience of how that material might apply in their future?
For example, can a young child in kindergarten, who is just learning the alphabet, truly appreciate how valuable it is to learn those symbols in their arbitrary order, and the lifelong access to a range of skills learning the alphabet will afford? Does the child learn the alphabet because they think it’s relevant, or do they learn the alphabet because they are told to by adults who know how important it is to learn it?
The argument about education being relevant has spread, most notably in relation to ethnicity. While it is important to recognise different cultural knowledge, experiences, and worldviews, such thinking has led, for example, to classical music programmes being cancelled for Pacific children, because classical music is not relevant to Pacific children. Classical music may not be part of a traditional Pacific musical heritage, but we must ask: “Should education open doors to a wider world, or should it paint a child into his or her own little corner?.”
Throughout history, schools have been used to bring about social change. The general idea is teachers aren’t there just to transmit knowledge to students, but rather to condition students to want a different kind of society. Examples of this in the 21st century are rife, with even primary school children taking (or receiving) a view on things like capitalism and climate change. In many cases, these are complex issues that the most intelligent in our society have yet to wholly understand. Thomas Sowell argued that teaching such things to children is like telling people how to perform surgery when they don’t understand the basics of anatomy or hygiene. While it is important for children to engage in current affairs and issues that affect society, perhaps we need to ensure we get the basics right first so that they can properly engage with these issues. Sowell also argued that education should give students intellectual tools like literacy and numeracy, and teach them to analyse and reach conclusions based on logic and evidence. That would seem to me to be a good place to start (together with ensuring children actually attend school). This approach would help to improve the terrible outcomes that too many New Zealand children are experiencing.
Those who are shifting the focus away from the basics of education pay no price for being wrong. Rather, that price is paid by those children who rely on a good education to improve their lot in life. In other words, the price is paid by those who can least afford to pay it. For that reason alone, we owe it to New Zealand children to be firm about the purpose of education, and that’s to provide, at the most basic level, children with strong literacy and numeracy skills, and the ability to actually think.
Dr Melissa Derby, Senior Lecturer at The University of Waikato. This article was originally published by The Common Room and is published here with kind permission.
7 comments:
Wow! Melissa. How do you survive at Waikato University?
Good work. I hope you’ve got traction.
Hi Melissa.
Thank you for your very fine article and the good sense that lies behind it. Degrading of education in recent decades here in New Zealand is a very serious issue and it is critical that we listen to experts such as you and take the necessary steps to get education back on track.
David Lillis
Worthy sentiments Melissa, which beg the question as to the next step - how is this to be achieved? How can NZ education get back on track? Because once upon a time it was very much on track; the envy of the world. Over my 40 years career in primary and secondary sectors I have watched our education system degenerate into dysfunction. One notable feature of the old Ministry of Education was its relative independence from government. Staffed by government bureaucrats to be sure, but they were at least educators first. Sound policy permeated down to excellence in the classroom. Since those days we have seen the progressive politicisation of New Zealand education, to the point where education in New Zealand is a shadow of its former self. It seems no good comes of government interference and control in education; perhaps what is required is a separation of education from the state, as secular as church and state in modern democracies.
There are a lot of loose ends here some of which are unlikely to be tied up to everyone's satisfaction.
I used Human Capital Theory to address the issue of educational relevance in my doctoral work. Primary schooling ought to focus principally on literacy and numeracy which have demonstrable human capital value - literate workers are more productive than illiterate ones. Lower secondary schooling, through its 'a little of everything' structure, makes young minds more versatile and able to adapt to change. Upper secondary schooling puts young people onto a career track that culminates in career-related qualifications at tertiary level. This approach has the advantage of not getting into knotty arguments about waffly stuff like 'morality'.
Thanks Melissa for injecting some practicality into this issue. It drives me to despair seeing how poorly my kids are educated and what a hash the government and educational bureaucracy is making of education these days as our standards slip further and further behind.
At my kids primary school they made such a poor job of maths education, the teachers resorted to handing out flyers for Numberworks academy. Imaging that - a decile 1 school doing such a poor job of teaching that they push parents towards making up for their deficit with private tutoring.
Now in secondary school the science teacher is pushing Mauri (discredited in the 1800's) as something real in an actual chemistry lesson! Astonishing.
Please keep pushing your message - we parents desperately support you!!!!!
In the 1970s,I ceased studying NZ tertiary Education because the issues and conclusions , Melissa mentions were actively discouraged. My traditional views were scorned and the progressive ideas of Dewey et al were dogma. What a breath of fresh air it is now discussed.
It is true that education has always attempted to change society. Traditional Liberal Education was firmly ( in Dunedin where I lived it was obsessionally ), focused on the basics , which made social mobility possible and produced independent citizens who contributed to society not dependent on welfare or in prison. Nuanced reading comprehension exercises promoted critical thinking as did debating. Human capital ideas were part of it. Reaching your full potential was the dictate. We had low tuition fees as tertiary students because we were considered an asset to society as well as advancing ourselves.
Progressive Education (PE), to me lost the plot entirely, by discrediting the basics as was stated directly in Dewey's writings.
For Universal literacy for example to happen morality plays a big role. Practised not preached. For learning to occur and teaching made possible a class of pupils must include being orderly, practice self control, be unselfish, accept correction along with developing a work ethic and developing many other acceptable human values.
I hope the debate between traditional liberal Education and Progressive Education continues.
Yes, great post Melissa and very pertinent that you should mentioned Thomas Sowell. Much of what you mention is summed up in this soundbite by him -
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rwl7zHrHvEE
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.