Getting a job is a happy byproduct of schooling
A perspective on the purpose of schooling
I spend a lot, arguably too much, time thinking about what is education, what does it mean to be educated, and how to structure schools accordingly. Personally, I am very much a trial and error learner, perhaps I am inpatient and just want to get my hands dirty. I didn't much like school, and I was the student who was constantly thinking: How does this relate to my life? And what am I going to do with this information? I was more interested in working to make money—i.e., applying what I learned for my benefit—than I was in producing, what I thought to be, arbitrary work for a teacher to grade. So when I re-imagine schooling, it's in a very Dewey-esk way. I guess this is the romantic in me. My favorite aspect of learning in school was the opportunity to discuss books and write about ideas I was interested in. When it comes to learning outside of school, my most informative experiences came from reading, traveling, and talking with others who do and do not share my worldview. As such, when it comes to education whether inside or outside of a school, I think kids should experience the world and experiment with ideas. But I have recently become more receptive to the idea that there is a body of knowledge that should be passed on to kids. So, in a lot of ways, I have come to think of education in schools as a mish mash of experiential learning and learning from past thinkers. According to David Ferrero, I am a combination of perennialist and progressive.
I am in the midst of reading the Great Books using the Socratic seminar method, which is one cause for my drift toward perennialism, but I also find Briar Lipson's report, New Zealand's Education Delusion, and subsequent discussion of the report on "FreeKiwi!," compelling. The report argues for a return to a liberal arts approach to schooling in New Zealand (which is relevant to the US context as well), one in which schools acquaint students with “the best that has been thought and said,” and away from child-centered learning, in which responsibility for learning is handed over to individual students. I am sympathetic to the student-centered, whole-child approach and it's focus on developing students' interests and competencies. From my perspective, children need to be exposed to a variety of experiences to figure out what they are interested in and good at. And that this is difficult to do in a system that has a singular focus on packaging information for students to digest from age 5 to 18. But I recognize that societies over the course of history have accumulated knowledge that we would be wise to pass on to our young, that they themselves may not, or cannot, experience firsthand. And math is a good example of a body of knowledge that students need to be taught rather than pick up through experience. Plus, because the whole-child approach focuses on students directing their own learning, students may choose not to do things that are challenging. This might make young people fragile rather than anti-fragile. The more exposure we have to things that challenge us, the more resilient we will become.
But if schools are designed well, they should be able to do both. Young people should both learn a body of knowledge from those that have come before them and be given opportunities to apply that knowledge, as well as experiment with new ideas.
A central argument that Lipson makes during her conversation on "Free Kiwis!" is that schooling should not be utilitarian. In other words, it should not be job training. She argues that the purpose of schooling should be to build character and introduce children to the best that's been thought and said, which will enable them to stand on the shoulders of giants—i.e., the best writers and thinkers that have come before them. She argues that if you have received a good liberal education, getting a job is a happy byproduct, but not the focus or goal of education. Notably, however, in her report she quotes E.D. Hirsch at the start of the section on "liberal schooling." Hirsch has been considered an essentialist by some, and essentialists believe that the purpose of schooling is to prepare productive citizens by "teaching students the knowledge, skills and behaviors that are valued by the economy and by society at large."
Lipson asserts that the utilitarian approach to schooling is limiting. And that we need to separate getting employment and the economic needs of the country from the purpose of schooling. She views school as a place to enrich yourself, and claims that you will learn how to be a doctor or electrician after school. A liberal education trains one in how to think, and in a democratic society, you need to be able to think. Schools should not be in the business of training workers partly because they don't do this well. Public schools in particular are conservative and bureaucratic, and technological development often moves at a pace that schools cannot keep up with.
Lipson also argues that a utilitarian approach is elitist. Arguments for this approach and against a liberal arts education for young people during K-12 schooling, especially for those in low-income neighborhoods, also strikes me as elitist. Especially when the argument is made by those who went to or send their kids to private schools where a liberal arts education is common. It's as if they are saying "good for me, not for thee." But, on the other hand, schools grounded in the liberal arts should not denigrate the trades or look down upon students who choose not to go to college. Ultimately, a liberal arts education teaches young people how to problem-solve, which is a skill that is applicable to any life path a young person chooses. As such, during secondary schooling, I would argue that young people should be granted the freedom to make choices that might inform their path after graduating high school, including apprenticeships and internships. Lipson, on the other hand, argues that young people should not be given unlimited autonomy and choice in what they will learn, but she does contend that freedom can be devolved to them as they age.
Lipson does not advocate that by learning about the wisdom of others students should become mindless proponents of the culture, rather by receiving a liberal arts education students will be prepared to critique and develop the culture. In other words, students should learn the culture as it is so that they can go on and do things with that knowledge, such as change it. She argues that by not teaching about a country's origins and culture, students will be uninformed about why things are the way they are and changing the culture will be less effective. Lipson provides Darwin as an example. Darwin was a master of the technical skills needed to develop ideas about evolution. If he didn't have the accumulated wisdom of those who came before him, his arguments would not have gained traction. People would have accused him of not knowing what he's talking about.
A concern with the whole-child approach, as Lipson expresses in her report, is that it works best for students with a store of knowledge. If the whole-child approach does not include learning the necessary knowledge prior to activities that require application of that knowledge and subsequent skills, the approach will advantage kids who come from home environments where access to books and enrichment activities that impart knowledge are more common. Another concern is that knowledge is a priori to skill development. If a student does not have the necessary knowledge they will be less likely to develop the proper skills for a given situation. For example, knowledge of letters, blending and manipulating sounds, and segmenting written words is needed for a child to acquire the skill of decoding the English language. A body of knowledge is also required for critical thinking: Critical thinking "is an abstract description of what humans can do as a result [sic] amassing a wealth of underpinning knowledge and skills relevant to the particular context in which thinking is to be deployed." It is not something that can be honed through practice in an experiential learning environment, but critical thinking can be applied to problem-solving in the real world once young people have the necessary knowledge.
Advocates of the whole-child approach to learning (i.e., experiential, problem-based, inquiry-based, etc.) would be wise to ensure that students have the body of knowledge and skills needed to then experiment with ideas and advance our collective knowledge.
Relevant articles from the web
The problem with the whole-child approach to learning math and the current attack on math as white supremacy: Decolonising Math is Rooted in a Decades-Old Conflict
Critical thinking is not a skill that can be learned, it is the result of acquiring a body of knowledge and skills: Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking
The many philosophies of educating the young: Schools Don’t Have to Adopt Critical Education Theory to be Inclusive or Just
Other articles that caught my eye
What Happens When a Slogan Becomes the Curriculum. A curriculum inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement is spreading, raising questions about the line between education and indoctrination.
An additional concern with Black Lives Matter (the movement, not the sentiment) that Friedersdorf does not address in this article is that teachers are wearing BLM gear to school. BLM organizers have been hesitant to denounce the rioters that engage in violence who claim to advance the cause of BLM. In Portland, OR in particular, BLM protestors have thrown feces and urine at police officers, and some of those police officers have children in public schools. If BLM is not denouncing this violence, and teachers are wearing BLM shirts to school, this creates a tension between teachers and the children of police officers.
The Miseducation of America's Elites. Affluent parents, terrified of running afoul of the new orthodoxy in their children’s private schools, organize in secret.