This week I spent a day at university as part of my “Masters in Teaching and Learning”. As part of the study we were presented with a number of statements about the purpose of education that we were asked to comment on.
The last two were a “democratic” purpose:
“Educating children is a human right, but it comes with responsibilities. Education is not merely for the benefit and development of the individual child, but also for the development and betterment of a free and fair society. Children are to be educated to prepare them to live in freedom in a free society. Virtues such as tolerance, respect and understanding are to be consciously taught to pupils alongside a formal academic curriculum.”
and a “functional/utilitarian” view:
“Formal education costs a lot and whoever pays for it should get something in return – ‘value for money’ is essential. Governments pay for education through taxation and, therefore, governments say what education is for. Formal schooling is provided in order to fit children for ‘society’ and ‘work’, to produce people who can contribute to, perpetuate and help secure the future of the state. Education must be ‘fit for purpose’. A curriculum is to be followed rather than knowledge explored. Teachers are to be held to account for what they teach. Children are to be examined to ensure they are learning what is deemed to be essential for their future employment and to show that the investment in their education in terms of time and money has not been wasted. Gaining recognised and certified qualification, normally through sitting formal examinations, is seen as the end product of education.”
Obviously as collection of liberal(ish) teachers the first, democratic, purpose was generally agreed to be more desirable whilst the second was closer to reality.
But on reflection I wonder how bad the second really is (apart from being a little long winded). The problems with the democratic views I see are
- It seems to move moral and social education away from the family specifically and society generally and into the classroom
- There is no suggestion of accountability for teachers or schools
- It appears to be teachers and educationalists who decide what is for the best for society and individuals
- It’s a bit woolly and immeasurable
- I’m not sure that consciously teaching virtues such as tolerance, respect and understanding won’t be simply recognised as preaching and cant by students and rejected as such
Whereas the the functional view at least recognises the fact that education sits within a context of both state and society, and is subservient to both. It also has clear measurable outcomes. I’m not sure about the rejection of exploring knowledge as I don’t think exploring knowledge is necessarily incompatible with equipping students for employment, but that apart I’m not sure that aspects of the two are entirely incompatible. Tolerance, respect and understanding should be embedded in the ethos of schools. In our society (wrongly or rightly) getting exam certificates is seen as one way to prepare young people to be part of a free society.
[...] I’ve had good points, I used my holidays walking halfway across Wales and visited friends (and did I mention Ofsted liked my lesson?). OK, I didn’t mention the few days in Dublin but that would be dull. I’ve also explored my responses to my first ever involvement in industrial action. I’ve alluded to my on-going studies. [...]