Help me with my homework....

[nekokami]

Hi folks,

As many of you know, I'm in a doctoral program in Education. This semester I'm taking a course called "Critical Inquiry." Here is part of my homework for this week:

4. Ask three other people for their definition of education, record them, classify them and then assess them.
5. Ask three other people who should determine the curriculum for public schools and why, i.e. ask them their reasons for their answer.

Naturally, I could ask friends and family locally, but I thought it would be more interesting to ask you folks, as you are an international community, and pretty smart folks, as well. I thought I might get more diversity of responses this way.

The assignment is due Tuesday.

Thanks for any input!

Edit: Note that in the US, "public schools" means schools paid for with state or city funding, open to all students living within the region of the school district, attended during the day. (I know the meaning of this phrase is different in the U.K.)

[vivaldirules]

Okay, my two cents, neko. I hope it helps.

Education - an interactive method of learning involving one or more students with one or more mentors, teachers, other students, and sometimes compilations of knowledge (books, etc.); usually involves a process which is intended not just to pass along knowledge but to instill thinking in the student to advance his/her ability to think critically

I'm of the opinion that important things (like school curricula) should be determined by people who are particularly knowledgeable and dedicated regarding the matter at hand (in this case, by educators). I am not opposed to having public hearings and such that might help inform those educators of the opinions of others that they might not have heard. But a democracy doesn't mean everybody should have an equal part in making all decisions. I certainly don't want people who have no clue or who have passionate agendas that have little to do with education to have any part in making the final decisions.

[LazyScot]

I must resist the temptation to go on about subversive education and Chris Stasheff...

To me, education is an on-going process, that starts with developing the skills to educate oneself. Education is the means by which people gain the skills they need to both be a part of and interact with the society of which they themselves are a part. In a democracy, the most important of these are the abilities to educate, question, challenge, debate and research.

I honestly don't know who should decide the curriculum, but I think it should be a concensus across a group with a range of areas of expertise reflecting the society we wish to live in. I feel that these people should be involved in the education process. However, my own personal bigotry would be to exclude religious beliefs from the process of deciding the curriculum, whilst still guaranteeing those beliefs the space within the curriculum to be explained. I am tempted to include political views in the same class as religious to prevent continual, confusing tampering...

PM me if you need some questions answered....

(And having said some of the above, I shall retreat to a safe bunker as I am bound to have upset some people....)

[slayda]

Well, keep in mind that all my life I've been referred to as "Old Weird Don" so my answers my sound somewhat unusual.

Education - the transfer of knowledge into a mind usually from one mind to another but not always. This can take any or all of several forms, some of which are; a teacher teaching a group of students, one person writing a book and another reading it, observation - i.e. watching what someone or something does (possibly not even human or even animate, e.g. watching weather).

Who should choose a curriculum is somewhat more ambiguous. First it should preferably be someone who already has knowledge, e.g. teachers. This is not always possible and the chooser has to make some guesses but in "public schools" in the American society, that should not be a problem. Second, those responsible for the students (i.e. the parents, guardians, etc.) should have a voice in the choice but only to express opinion not to demand that their choice be met. Third, I believe that the students themselves should also have a voice in choosing the curriculum.

I think it is equally important to determine who should not select the curriculum. In that category the first on my list are politicians, second would be religious "fanatics" (read here those with very strong religious beliefs even though they may not be considered fanatical and I include fanatical atheists as well). And finally those so called experts who may have exemplary formal education but have never had the duty of standing in front of a class and teaching. (I've seen too many of these "experts" ruin things over my reasonably long lifetime.)

[RWood]

Education is the transfer of knowledge to others. This involves facts, theories, and other constructs. It also contains methods of communication such as language and methods of thinking, reasoning, and classification. They must be provided with the data and the tools to use that data. One without the other is useless.

Control of the curriculum should be in the hands of an elected body drawn from those that contributed to the funding of the educational institutions – in this case, the taxpayers. Since the goal of most education at the public level is for creating new citizens with the same body of basic knowledge as the community, they are the best informed as to what is and is not part of that body of knowledge. This does spawn the question of what level – national, state, community, or school – is the best for determining the curriculum. All too often, they are in conflict with politics winning out over prudence. In the best of all possible worlds it would be at the school level with parents (and the student) free to select the school that best fits their needs/wants/desires. (Baltimore City for example had open enrollment where you could go to any school as long as you passed the entrance exam for that school.) Schools that did not meet the objectives would be rewarded with declining students until they could no longer economically function. Likewise, successful schools would be emulated. (I could go on for three pages. If you want a follow-up, please PM.)

[nekokami]

Thanks, everyone! And if anyone feels more comfortable sending me a private message, that's fine too. I'm not in this to judge anyone's answer, and I welcome input from anyone who chooses to answer. Given the nature of the class, I think the purpose of this exercise is to see how much my definition changes over time based on what all of you suggest (e.g. my definition may become more complete, as each of you suggests something new that I hadn't previously thought of).

After Tuesday, I'll post what I handed in, for the curious, as well as comments I may have on anything posted here.

[nekokami]

Thanks, Slayda!

Originally Posted by slayda

Who should choose a curriculum is somewhat more ambiguous. First it should preferably be someone who already has knowledge, e.g. teachers. This is not always possible and the chooser has to make some guesses but in "public schools" in the American society, that should not be a problem. Second, those responsible for the students (i.e. the parents, guardians, etc.) should have a voice in the choice but only to express opinion not to demand that their choice be met. Third, I believe that the students themselves should also have a voice in choosing the curriculum.

I think it is equally important to determine who should not select the curriculum. In that category the first on my list are politicians, second would be religious "fanatics" (read here those with very strong religious beliefs even though they may not be considered fanatical and I include fanatical atheists as well). And finally those so called experts who may have exemplary formal education but have never had the duty of standing in front of a class and teaching. (I've seen too many of these "experts" ruin things over my reasonably long lifetime.)

Could you tell me more about how you came to this decision about who should be most involved in selecting the curriculum, in the order or priority that you described? Or what you would give as the reason for this priority? (I'm not questioning your priorities at all, but I was directed to ask each person why they answered the way they did on this question.)

[Patricia]

I'm not convinced about education being defined as the transfer of knowledge from one person to another. People can teach themselves, and learn from practice and experience. It's also possible for a group of people to learn collectively without a formal teacher. Some educational institutions have experimented with peer learning, using a (non-expert) facilitator. One might argue that people might learn better if they have to take responibility for their learning, rather than passively accepting the teacher's words.
The transfer model is hierarchical: one person (the teacher) is in charge because they are the expert.

And what's wrong with allowing learners to be in charge of the curriculum? In the anarchist Summerhill school, that is exactly what happened. Surely we all have memories of sitting through hours of calculus/geography/art history and forgetting it all? (Or never learning it in the first place.)
I know kids who could never get their heads round fractions or percentages whilst in school. But when they needed to calculate wage rates, or buy floor tiles then they taught themselves the maths, or asked their numerate friends for a crash course.

[RWood]

I think that you are combining the concepts of learning with education. By the very nature of education it is not something that you can do alone.

I spent two years as a grad student in the case method (MBA) and I learned more from my fellow students than I did from the instructors.

Often in the US the word "education" is used to define the end product, not the method. Thus such terms as "Get an education" are used rather than "Go learn something."

[LazyScot]

As a belated aside, somewhat picking up on Patricia's points, I don't think I've learned anything as well, thoroughly or as effectively as those things I've had to "teach" to others (both for courses that had a self-taught process, and subsequently as lecturer). It is an interesting question in this case who was being educated...

As the saying goes: "I hear, I forget. I see, I remember. I do, I understand."

I look forward to reading the resultant homework.

[RobbieClarken]

In my opinion, the people best suited to determine the curriculum are those closest to the child - the parents. The reason being they know most about the childs abilities, aspirations, opportunities etc. How to empower parents with the ability to choose the curriculum is the tricky question. I think the best option is to give each parent a voucher to spend at any school (public or private) or their choice. Then allow schools to determine their curriculum and teaching methods and allow them to compete for pupils. Parents will choose the best schools for those kids and competition will reward the good schools and drive out the bad. Hopefully this system would also reduce the bickering over whether things like intelligent design and sex education are in the curriculum as if parents don't approve of these topics being taught they can vote with their feet and move their kids to a school that better suits them.

[nekokami]

I'm writing up my essay now. In the process, I was interested in getting some broader perspective on the purpose of public schools, and I found this:

AGAINST SCHOOL: How public education cripples our kids, and why
By John Taylor Gatto
http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

I thought the rest of you might find it interesting, as well.

[RWood]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm writing up my essay now. In the process, I was interested in getting some broader perspective on the purpose of public schools, and I found this:

AGAINST SCHOOL: How public education cripples our kids, and why
By John Taylor Gatto
http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

I thought the rest of you might find it interesting, as well.

Great article.

[nekokami]

Well, I handed in my homework last night... all 21 pages of it. I don't think you're going to want to read all of it here. But for completeness, I will at least post my own answers to the two questions I asked.

I was supposed to write my definition of education before asking anyone else. Here it is:

Noun. A formal system intended to impart knowledge, skills, principles, and/or values to one or more participants; the results of such a system.

(I was constrained to 25 words or less.)

I chose to distinguish between education and learning in this definition. We learn in many ways, but I think when we use the term "education," we usually mean purposeful learning, and generally in some systematic way.

I was asked to get arguments from others before generating my own response on who should decided the curriculum of public schools. I really appreciate the answers you all gave. I found them very helpful in formulating my response:

In order to decide who should direct the curriculum of public schools, we must first determine what the purpose of public schools is. Since public funds are being used, should we assume that public schools are intended to provide some “common good”? Is their purpose to prepare citizens? And if so, do we intend for this preparation to entail the ability to think critically, the transfer of cultural values, and socialization within the community? If we include the transfer of cultural values as part of citizen preparation, do we intend to selectively transfer the values of the dominant culture, the culture of the local community, the culture of the parents, or a pluralistic combination of all available cultures? When we speak of socialization within the community, do we intend to teach skills of cooperation and constructive contention, or conformity and obedience to authority?

Perhaps public schooling is provided as an avenue of social justice—a means to allow all children to achieve their greatest potential, irrespective of the resources their parents may have had. In that case, what do we mean by potential? An operational definition might be necessary here. Should we assess the success of public schooling based on access to employment, and eventual income? On achievement as measured via standardized tests? By success in more advanced educational programs? On some measurement of “happiness”?

Or perhaps public schools are intended to support the community’s economy, by preparing skilled workers for businesses or entrepreneurship. Or, as the cynical might suggest, perhaps one function of public schools is simply as a form of publicly funded babysitting, so parents can participate in the workforce rather than monitoring their children and keeping them out of trouble, with a long-term goal of reducing crimes committed by graduates by whatever means necessary.

I don’t believe there is consensus in the United States around the purposes of education. I have seen arguments presented to support all of the purposes listed above, several of which are contradictory. I will stipulate, for this discussion, that the purposes of public education in the kind of society I would prefer to live in include preparation for citizenship by encouraging the development of critical thinking, cooperative communication, and constructive contention, and by helping students become aware of the diversity of cultures that form our pluralistic society; where possible, the values common to those cultures should be conveyed, in addition to points of difference that can cause friction. I will also stipulate that a purpose of public education is to provide developmental support for individual students in terms of helping each of them identify and build on their own strengths, overcome or compensate for weaknesses, and learn how to learn to do anything they would need or want to do later, practicing this last skill on a range of content designed to provide a broad sample of human knowledge.

With these purposes in mind, the curriculum should be designed in part (and delivered) by people who are already skilled as critical thinkers, cooperative communicators, and lifelong learners, and in part by people able to represent the diverse cultures in our society. As the individual subjects are less important, in some senses, than the breadth of subjects and the way in which they are investigated, the content of the curriculum should be decided in large part by the students themselves, with guidance in cooperative selection, critical investigation, and learning strategies by teachers. Subject matter experts (working practitioners in the fields in study) would be encouraged to work with groups of students to provide knowledge, skills, and conventions specific to the areas selected by the students and teachers to pursue.
In terms appropriate to our current framework, this would place local teachers (possibly as a cooperative group) in the position of directing the functional aspects of the curriculum, with input from local community representatives (possibly in the form of a school board, or possibly as open community meetings or a parent’s association), with the content directed in an ongoing project-based manner by the students themselves, with support from the teachers and surrounding community. As students mature, they may begin to develop areas of specialized interests that will benefit from being allowed to group with other students and community members with similar interests, though breadth of subject (and diversity of culture) should always be encouraged.

Comments welcome, of course.

[RWood]

When I was going to school (1-12), I went to 13 schools all over the country as my Father was transferred often. (He was in computers and they were changing a great deal in the 50s and 60s.) One of the strangest schools was an elementary school just north of Buffalo. NY where they gave us "Certificates" for completing the 6th grade. I remember the Principal telling us to hang on to them as we would need to show them when we started our apprentice program at the local factory where most of their Fathers worked.