Eric Hoffer
As we move further into the 21st Century the pervasiveness of knowledge and the multitude of means by which we can access it, share our ideas, and collaborate with other people means that we must constantly re-examine the purpose of education. This fluidity goes much beyond formal schooling, and education, and into the realms of work, of ‘life itself’, since school, college and formal training are only moments in anyone’s educational journey.
Having read many of the contributions to this online discourse I would agree with much of what has been said so far. There seems to be much consensus around the idea that education is an emancipatory force for good, not a process by which we can tie down and control people’s world view and thinking. I echo the common thread that education is about self-development, about cultivating people’s talents and skills so that they can better themselves and others. In current times it is comfortable to measure education by the sum total of the ‘facts accumulated’ along the way. From the dialogue so far it is clear that many of us working in education want to go deeper, and see our role as being to mould the conditions for learners to develop their own internal resilience and resources, to achieve these goals through a set of ‘habits of mind’ that help them to become successful people in an ever changing world. I also hope, like many, that we can make this process fun!
However, I am struck by what I can really add to such a debate without simply repeating all that has gone before. In my daily role in a large secondary school in SE London I am struck by how we have to translate these ideals or principles into reality. All too often those of us working in schools are distracted by the focus on the ‘easier to measure’ outcomes of education, and we forget to remember what learning is – a process; that learners are active agents in a meaning making process – and not just recipients of it. Rightly we have to ensure that we are doing right by our students, getting them the right markers that allow them to progress further through the educational system. However, if we are to be true to what we believe the purpose of education to be, we must ask questions of how we support the development of the kind of learning and learners that bolster these lofty principles. The young people I meet on a daily basis are not mere consumers of meaning, of knowledge, they are in fact active producers of it. The purpose of education has to be to facilitate their development as active creators. Recently sitting in on a group of students in Year 8 following a Philosophy for Children programme I was struck that creating the conditions for learning that reflect this ‘purpose for education’ is an untidy process that needs to start by asking questions, and sifting through them before finding any answers. A crucial element of change in education is to ask how we can get all of us working in that sector to see ourselves as learners and not just the learned?
purpos/ed
What an eloquent piece about the tensions between the philosophy and pragmatism of educational institutions! :-)
ReplyDelete'...creating the conditions for learning...' is key, the leviathan structure that is our current education system is so slow to move, to change, to lead the learners forward that, unless an inspirational teacher, head teacher or, rarely, a whole school sees beyond this, and actively and creatively moves beyond the restraints to true education then we still are only flaffing round the edges of the real issue.
ReplyDeleteA thought provoking post. I completely agree that we need "to see ourselves as learners" and build up networks in which to share ideas and good practise. That way we build relationships and learning communities. Some of the most rewarding learning comes when you admit that, as a teacher (or parent!), that you do not know the answer so investigate and learn together.
ReplyDeleteI think #500 words is a very challenging quantity to get this message across - I learned a great deal from trying to do it. What is of most pressing concern is how we need to change the landscape on which this debate happens. That we need to re-examine how we promote and cultivate learning and how we measure it. We need to be able to break down 'subject' barriers and consider how interdisciplinary learning between staff and among learners is a key way to drive forward the change we need. It also means we need to move away from a model of the teacher as expert, to one where the teacher is an expert facilitator who can draw on the experience, knowledge and skills of other experts to providing learning experiences which truly challenge learners beyond the comfort into the ZPD as Vygotsky would term it - the twilight zone of the unknown or the not fully understood. This means re-thinking the curriculum, the timetable and also the instruments we use to measure education. To be honest I am more than slightly anxious about the direction the latter debate is moving in the UK as we move towards a world dominated by the EBAC and the 'importance of teaching'.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what would happen if we began to view teachers as artists rather than instructors? I suppose there are many kinds of artist so the ones I have in mind are those who begin with a question or an instinct that leads them into new territory. They combine their skill, their understanding of the craft of their profession and their considerable personal resilience in order to bring into form new thoughts and ideas. I would include all truly creative people - scientists, mathematicians, philosophers - regardless of their profession, under the banner of artist. What if teachers taught artfully and encouraged their students to acquire the same "habits of mind" in order to complete their apprenticeships? Perhaps what we need are a range of metaphors for school, for teaching and for learning so that we can think about the challenges that lie ahead? I really enjoyed reading your 500 words Doug. I'm also very proud of the fact that professional learners at Thomas Tallis School are making such a significant contribution to this debate.
ReplyDelete