The Purpose of Schooling
 

I've been meaning to pose this question to my fellow Avatarians for a while, but it wasn't until I saw Mune's [now old] signature that I decided to finally do it.

I've been studying education a lot in my university classes lately and how it ought to be improved. (I'm considering becoming a teacher, or at least working in that field.) One of the very first questions I was asked in a particular class was "Why do we have schools?" Perhaps it seems obvious at first, but it actually merits some deep thought.

Some answers that came up in the class:
-Schools prepare us with the necessary skills to get a career and earn a salary to live on.
-Without schooling, a society's structure would not transmit itself to the new generation and would eventually collapse, thus order is kept. (This is one of John Dewey's arguments in a very rough nutshell.)
-Schools foster civic engagement and teach one the laws, rights, and responsibilities of living in a given country (i.e. American students are taught the Bill of Rights and such).
-Schools teach one how to think critically and are important purely for the sake of developing minds.

So what I'm curious to hear from everyone is what they think schooling's purpose currently is and whether it should be that way. I imagine this discussion might turn into how schooling could be made better for the present and for the future, and that's perfectly fine.

Keep in mind - "school" is not synonymous with "education," for learning takes place outside of school as much as it does within it (if not more so). Families, religious congregations, public libraries, etc. are all institutions where education occurs.

A school's purpose should be a place for education. I agree, education comes from many sources: school is one of these sources. The two may not be synonymous, but they're certainly related. They're directly related. Now, schools (referring to colleges and universities) are thought of as either places to learn just enough to obtain a degree, or to better one's self in an area where he/she wishes to pursue a career (my case, for example).

Now, bettering yourself is fine. But education is the primary purpose. The whole idea about school being an "experience" where you "socialize" and "find yourself" came about when people got lazy, frankly. School should not be a place to make friends. Ever. It can be a place where you happen to meet other people, later continuing a friendship that doesn't associate itself with one's schooling, but the two should never, ever, EVER be interrelated. It's unfortunate that it's become that way today. Most kids just don't care anymore.

IMO schools are for both. Learning social skills is just as important for the futurue as learning skills in the "3 Rs".

Highschools more about the social aspect than the actual learning. I slept through most of Highschool and still graduated top third.

I have to agree with Isard, I could sit through all my classes with out retaining one bit of information and at the end of the year still be smarter than 90% of the other students.

Same, I didn't try at all and graduated top 5%. While I agree that school's ultimate purpose doesn't involve making friends, it's certainly a necessary side effect. Ultimately, the idea behind education is to prepare the children of the world for the real world/adulthood. Frankly, this isn't happening. Societal advancement should start at the foundation: children shouldn't be left behind, and people with intelligence are settling for less than their full potential. This starts with the teachers: nothing is more important than having a mentor as a child. It starts from the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child."

Aquaplant - that pretty much summed up my opinions in the matter. :)

This is exactly what I'm talking about.^ It shouldn't be about "getting the grade" or "graduating with high honors". It should be about the principle of learning. Highschools have become more about the "social aspect" because not a damn idiot in the system cares one speck anymore.

They're comparable to penal colonies now. It's sad.

Sorry if I made you rant, but thanks for sharing all that! I agree with what you and Zenit said on how it's not true when one's told that leaving school will result in a terrible life. You can make something of yourself either way. And the way some schools operate and treat students today, I'm not surprised when I hear of students wanting to leave. Ideally IMO, schools ought to give students every possible opportunity they have to succeed; many today are almost like dead-ends in life.


I've seen that video before, and it's great. Lot of great ideas in there. :)


Agreed. School should not be about learning how to game the system to get the highest qualifications. Genuine learning and engagement are important. (And thinking about that brings me back to Mune's chemistry teacher.) What you said, Woodsprite, makes me think of what I read in a book called "Doing School," how you can be one of the most honored students in a school without having truly learned anything in depth. Maybe I'm taking your post out of context but I feel the need to mention it.


I could write more but I've got to head out for a bit...

Education should be for bringing tools.

Not to modify behaviour, not to make what the teacher says strictly, not to obey rules. School should not be a mindless memory exercise or a place where to make friends.

School is a place to learn how to become an adult and live in the world -both academically and as a person.

At least, it's how it should be.

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/0...gif?1282491082
That about sums it up.:)

There are three main methods of learning - visual (learning by sight, such as reading), auditory (learning by sound, such as a lecture), and kinesthetic (learning through doing, such as experiments or projects). Schools in their current form do a decent job if you're a visual or auditory learner, but they fail for kinesthetic learners. It seems that with so many more forms of stimulus in the modern world, more and more children are becoming kinesthetic learners, but the educational system is still trying to force them into being visual and auditory learners, and when they fail, they label the child as having ADHD (which I personally don't believe in, it's become the biggest cash cow for the medical-industrial process). In many ways kinesthetic learning might not even be a new trend. I have a feeling we were all mostly kinesthetic learners back in kindergartern (everything we did was hands-on back then), and it's a form of learning that has it's benefits, as the 98% on the divergant thinking testing shows. It's also a good way of learning that builds social skills, by children learning together. The problem is that the antiquated status quo is based on classical intellectualism, of visual and auditory learning, and the medicated-conformity of kinesthetic learners that the system is not designed to handle (kinesthetic learners that the system hasn't managed to force into visual and auditory learners, that is). This is wrong. Not only are we robbing children of their childhood by turning them into drugged-up zombies, but we are selling out their potential to learn.

I find it ironic, and a bit hypocrtical that schools always want you to "be yourself," even though they are the most conformity-demanding institutions in the world (up their with prisons, as Woodsprite says). They only want you to be yourself if you fit within the status quo's definition of normality.

"Be different...but not too different."

I think the purpose is simple, but we've fallen off our tracks. We send our youth to school because they are the future. And we want a better future. It's like an investment, which in itself doesn't bother me. What bothers me is what we're investing in. We don't have a real clear vision of what "better" is. And we don't have an effective way of reaching our societal goals, whatever vague visions those are.

To cure this, I look to people like Sir Ken Robinson - the man in the video posted above. But I also think we need something more - a complete paradigm shift. One that is much more open to this kind of thought.

I posted this in another thread but here it is:

I agree with most of what has been said in the thread thus far. Education seems to fulfill the purpose of giving the population a general set of skills at the primary and secondary level (up to high school) while post secondary education seems to be a little more focused in a particular field.

One thing that I didn't seem mentioned (much) in the thread is that schools now seem to have a larger role in the raising of children. This seems especially true in neighborhoods with a large amount of broken families where one parent or only grandparent(s) are present in the child's life. This could effect the quality of education if resources are being used to address such an issue.

I think the social aspects of school are also important. One skill that many companies look for in an employee is the ability to work with others on projects or as part of a team. Schools should help prepare students to interact with others in such scenarios. I believe they call it leadership skill building, or something to that effect.

Why are social aspects important when students are open to a wide variety of social settings in life that have nothing to do with school? I was homeschooled for 8 years, for example, and I think I turned out pretty well concerning sociality. Schools should stick to acedemic education. Nothing more. They have no business concerning anything else.

Social aspects are important because we are a social species. It's not that children don't or can't learn social skills at home. Social skills are as important as academic skills in that social interaction plays a large part in our day to day lives. Why ignore education in such an integral part of our society?

If social skills are learned primarily outside the school, why are they necessary to teach in school? A waste of money if you ask me.

Because the school can add to the skills learned primarily within the home. It is also important to consider schools provide an atmosphere where social interaction takes place. For many children, it's their first experience away from their families for regular periods of time. But consider that any skill can be learned primarily outside of the school, thus why are any skills necessary to teach in school?

They're necessary because normally, acedemic skills are primarily learned inside the school, not outside. You can self-teach yourself about anything. That's true. But the school system is where the professionals are; where the professors are. You get a first-hand from-the-horse's-mouth education with interaction. That's why they're important.

With social skills it's the opposite concerning inside/outside school. Using a public system merely as an add-on to what students already know about is wasteful, if not foolish. If we bring kindergarden and preschool into the argument (like you have), then obviously yes. But then... you can't really count those as part of "real" schooling, condsidering how almost no acedemia is taught.

Now days they are learned primarily inside of the school. I agree, it is a more efficient means of passing on skills to children. This can also be true of learning social skills.

I feel that social skills (ex. - communication) are skills that can be efficiently taught in a school setting as math skills are efficiently taught within a school setting. But all schooling is basically an add-on to what students already know. It is a progression of knowledge that builds upon previously gained knowledge.

How is almost no academia taught at these parts? Aren't these the part of education where children learn more about how to read, write, are introduced to basic mathematics and numbers and the such?


EDIT: When I refer to "social skills" I am referring to such skills as cooperation, working in a team setting, listening, following directions, communication, leadership, et cetera. Many of these skills may be more focused on in earlier grades, but I do not think that discounts their importance. Many of these skills are still worked on at the university level and beyond. Why do you think there tends to be a number of group projects and presentations at the post secondary level of education?

I like this way of thinking, but nowadays it's all about the grades, because that's what the employee wants to see. Sad but true.

To me, social contact is very important part of the whole "wake up at six and sit still for hours and hours end" cycle school basically is. I wouldn't do it if there were no friends to do it with. To be honest, unless I happen to be specifically interested in the particular subject, the social contact is my only motivation.

In a word, control.
To tell children to be good consumers and to be 'normal', to perpetuate itself and keep tie status quo.
Sure, there is some useful information as well, and the world would be a far better place if everyone had at least a basic understanding of scientific principles, but if the intention was to allow people to learn what they do in the future, then it makes no sense why they have to do subjects that are no use for them. Beyond a certain point, there is no real reason. While intentions are often good, it ends up telling people not to question things.

The most important thing that is actually learned is about other people, how they react, how they will try and hurt you and maybe the very few who are actually decent people, and why not to trust people blindly.

If some power figure wanted to control the masses, he wouldn't send them to get an education. In fact, that's probably the last thing they would want - a bunch of people capable of critical thought.

That said, there isn't a lot of "critical thought" going on in schools. I feel like that was the original purpose - to create a new and brighter generation, but this is not the true outcome. The outcome is conformity, control, and loss of enthusiasm and will to do anything. Like you said, "Intentions are often good, but it ends up telling people to not question things."

So with many things, I agree. These things are happening. But I don't think that was the purpose, rather the outcome.

http://kontraband.se/blog/wp-content...7/clapping.gif

That touches on a lot of things that require changing.


Briefly mentioned but not expanded upon is the need for higher standards. I have the impression that standards in schools are just way too low.

When it came time for me to go to high school, I had two options. I could have gone to the public high school in my town, or my family could have paid thousands of dollars in tuition to send me to a private school. I consider myself fortunate enough to have had opportunity of choosing the second option.

Now I do not intend to involve religion or boast but to quote one of my university professors who recently said: "Roman Catholic schools are excellent at providing an education. You rarely see someone who graduates from a [Roman Catholic school] that cannot read or write at a proper college level."

Just to illustrate the differences: At my high school, 98% of students graduated on average per year, whereas, 60% of students graduated annually at the nearby public school. In fact in my graduating class of 2010, every single person graduated out of a class of 225 even though my shcool had a more difficult grading scale and higher standards. You could say that economics plays a role; however, my high school gave free rides to many disadvantaged students of various levels of intelligence, yet they all graduated and excelled at standardized tests.

I am under the impression that schools have lowered standards over the years so that more could simply graduate; however, lower standards bring lower expectations. If school seems easy, then everyone just takes it as a joke and does not work hard. My English teacher would often discuss the appalling standards of public schools with her class. One day, she brought in a textbook used in public schools. She handed out a pamphlet containing George Washington's complete farewell address and then showed us the version contained within the textbook. The textbook version was four paragraphs long with the text simplified so that a third grader could read it. (the actual address in this link)

Schools should also teach more of the liberal arts such as rhetoric, debating, philosophy, humanities, etc. A lot of people dismiss them but as someone who took such classes, I can truly say that they are extremely important for going far in life.

I wish I had the opportunity to attend the local Catholic high school as it performed at the level you described. My mother is a retired teacher and substitute teacher and one thing she noticed when comparing schools that were doing well to schools that were struggling was the amount of behavioral problems each school had. The schools that struggled seemed to have more problems with behavior, which required the teacher to spend more time trying to correct behavior problems. She's worked at schools where students have threatened to cause harm to her to schools where the students were pretty much all well behaved. Another thing she noticed was the amount of parental involvement. In schools that were struggling she noticed the lack of parental involvement in the children's education. I feel that the difference between private schools and public schools is that public schools generally have to accept children that have behavioral problems, are in trouble with the law, et cetera.

Agreed. Students should have skills such as critical thinking by the time they enter college.

Schools with selective admission will always do better than others because they can pick the better students.
I went to a grammar school - all the grammar schools in the area (and in general) are far better in terms of results than the other schools nearby, because they only accept people who pass the test to get in (which if I remember correctly, is around the top 10-20% of people).
It isn't HOW they do things so much as it's the fact that they can select who they take (that and money of course, because more money WILL get results, since it allows better rations of staff, and more and better resources).

As in a number of things, because the USA has so many bad schools, there is a reaction among many people that schools should be done away with altogether, or replaced with some form of education so radically different as to constitute the same response. I've found this reaction among many people and the fact is that they haven't got an experience of what a really good school can be like.


I was damn fortunate to have gone to a series of excellent schools in the UK. I've had the chance to compare with some universities in the USA and I can certainly see why some people think they're a waste of time.

Most teachers do a rotten job of answering the "why should I learn this, I'm never going to use it" argument. Schools should have two (academic) purposes: Expose kids to new things, and stretch their minds. Whether or not they're going to use what they're taught is immaterial. It's about getting them to work out their brains in new directions and bulk up the intellectual muscle. Some people are naturally drawn to push themselves in those directions but the majority need a push to excel. The very smartest ones realize this is true throughout life and pay people like me to keep pushing.

Childhood is when the brain is most elastic. The rate at which a human being between the ages of 5 and 15 learns is phenomenal. To waste any of that opportunity for creating as much mental capability as possible would be a shame.

Of course, there are other aspects (such as socialization and etiquette) that are just as if not more important in the raising of a good person, and whether those are the province of a school or the family is always debatable. I confine my arguments to the academic domain.

What does everyone here think of the race to the top program in the US?

I never went to a selective admission school. Everyone of various levels was free to apply and we still had a 98% annual graduaiton rate with an average of half of all students recieving college scholarships. My class, 2010, recieved over $14 million in college scholarships and awards (approx 225 students).

Behavior has a large role to play also. I went a private grade school also from kindergarden to the eighth grade. The rules were much stricter (according to the public school students) but it simply seemed normal to us. In fact I always remember hearing stories from those who had friends in the public school system. There would always be fights and such. Walking through a public grade school recently, I could hear curse words from students all the time. The situation is absolutely appalling imo.

Schools do need to take more responsibility in raising children and teaching proper etiquette. Unfortunately in today's society, bad parenting often leads to bad behavorial problems which in turn blocks the learning process and ruins it for those around them also. Its very hard to concentrate and it is very demotivating when the person next to you is just lounging around and not paying attention.

We have been throwing money at the problem for decades but the next generation will end up less literate then the next.

In fact the teachers at my school were paid a lot less than their public school counterparts and yet it produced far greater results. I also have to say that my private school had the second lowest tuition of any private high school in America (when I enrolled), yet it had a very good reputation.

Y'know, I have to confess I haven't done a whole lot of research into it. I was reading a commentary on it a few weeks ago, though; I might have to find it and read more before I post anything.


Banefull: would you say that the teachers at your school were very effective, high-quality teachers? (Or was there some other reason for the great results?)

I ask because I've been thinking that having great teachers is one of the best ways to produce results.

Definitely. Some teachers are far more enthusiastic than others, some treat their students with far more respect that others, and to be honest, some actually know the material they are teaching, while some, quite simply, do not. The former of each always produce far better results than the latter.

Ultimately, it comes down to the students themselves.

The best grades do not necessarily go to the smartest individuals but rather the hard working. Yeah sure intelligence makes it easier, but being "smart" is no guarantee. With the exception of the bottom rungs of the IQ ladder, just about everyone is far far more than smart enough to graduate from high school and go to college. Motivation is what matters. At the beginning of each semester or quarter, I can always tell whom among my fellow classmates is going to make it. If they're whispering about how useless this class is or texting during lectures, then you know that they will not make it. They are doomed in the long run.

While some teachers may be better than others, there is nothing wrong with the average teacher. Virtually every teacher wants to do his or her bets and see his or her students succeed (after all, no teach wants to be considered a "bad" teacher) but when your own students hardly seem interested, it really kills your spirit.

Demotivation is a deadly virus that is highly contagious. I have always noticed that the demotivated students often drag other students with them into the demotivational cesspit of no return. Its important to get children into the mindset of expecting to learn. Teachers play a role in building expectations and motivations; however, parents, community, acedemic standards, being challenged, and discipline especially in school play a huge role also.

If you take a look at some poor communities which have absolutely appalling graduation rates, it often comes down to the mindset. If you're growing up in a neighborhood where gangs are commonplace, you grow up observing everyone else. They subconciously send messages that you aren't going to graduate. It's not that they can't graduate from high school but that they come to believe that they can't and thus never bother to try. Look at the attendence rates in many failing shcools if you need proof.

Look at certain asian countries that produce phenomenal rates of excellent graduates (South Korea and Japan in particular). Is it because they are just smarter? or because they are better motivated? Look at their ethics regarding school. Walk into a kindergarten school in one of those countries and note how all of the students sit patiently and eagerly await learning, and then look at your nearby primary school with all of the students running around and screaming.

Well, I never went to school until college so I don't feel I have much to say :P I did love that video, Aquaplant.

However, I will say this: I wish I would have taken my education more seriously when I was younger. I wish I would have loved learning as much back then as I do now. IMO, one important problem is finding ways to help young people to love learning.

That's about all I have to say about that, for now at least

I think the Khane Academy is so awesome, and I only discovered it a few weeks ago. It's a VERY useful link for people who actually want to learn things without having to worry about the teacher's available time. There are a ton of other resources like that that can help you understand the concept you are learning.

Now, the purpose of education is a touchy subject for me at the moment, because I believe that there is going to be a massive revolution in education with online schools becoming so popular. My sister is in an online school while I'm in a public high school, and I tutor her in Algebra and Chemistry, so I see exactly how her online school is formatted, and I can truly say that I like what I see. Locally, there's been this big push for increasing the importance of being educated online. People have different ideas on this, I've discovered.

I know people who believe that online education should still entail going to class, but for a reduced time, like college. Independent learning would take place online with resources available to those who would learn from them.

Personally, being able to compare online vs. public schools, I can see a few fatal flaws with both of them. Public schools are not NEARLY as efficient as online schools. At the same time, online schools do not allow for that socialization that is actually very important that teens make use of. Socialization at this age helps people develop in a way that fits the status quo, and while this isn't totally desirable by today's standards, it's still better than having people be isolationists. The other problem with online schools is the weaknesses of attempting kinesthetic learning. In high school, I went through CAD for solid modeling, and the technology and hardware that I've used is definitely NOT feasible for the average consumer to buy.

This being said, I think that online schools can be used for most classes like English (or whatever language), Math, Science, Social Studies, Foreign Languages, etc; however, tech institutions would need to be made and collaborate with the online agenda in order to appropriate the use of the credit system. Science labs, wood working, metal fabrication, construction, and other tech categories would be able to be accomplished in public and still allow for proper schooling online. Obviously the school days online are shortened to compensate for these public classes.

Understand that I do not think that there is much wrong with the idea of having a general education in high school like some people blame. I've found that this knowledge base that we get in high school is necessary to get through the higher level of content, and that everything just builds on the previous concept. It certainly didn't feel that way my freshman year when I was first taking algebra, let me tell you. However, the idea behind grades controlling how our life will follow up drives me nuts. Grades are an absolutely horrible means of identifying how much a person is taking in. They don't compensate for time and they don't compensate for those people who can actually understand a concept without doing all of the practice work (a little bit of the practice work is necessary to ingrain the concept in your head though).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, the type of schooling that we get is online one side of the coin. People need to be willing to learn and truly try to put their best out there. It's been said before, I've seen it, teachers have seen it, the state and national leaders have hopefully seen it, but students lack the drive to go through school. I think this boils down to one reason: school is mandatory and is commonly available. In the past, if you could get educated, then it was a huge benefit and could mean that you would get a high paying job and increase your financial standing. With colleges today being so expensive and the job market looking bad on the surface, not many people are motivated to continue schooling for what could result in a huge waste in time and money.

The high status quo today seems to be to not care about school because "everyone else is doing it." God I'm glad I live in the country. I hate associating myself with most of the people at my school, I'm not going to lie. I don't know where my dad got this notion that high school is the golden years of anyone's life, but it certainly hasn't been that way for me. Mostly this is because my demographic drives me nuts, but also because I feel so trapped living where I am. I can go online and SEE all the things out there in the world, but I lack the financial and time needs to actually do some of this stuff.

I have read through this entire thread and all of you have some good ideas as to why our education system is broken. The school has a two fold purpose regardless of where you go (public school, private school, online/home, etc). the first is academic and the second is social. They are both very important but it is clear that one of the two aspects is neglected in most schools these days and that is academic. Very few are teaching logic, critical thinking, basic facts on science, history, math, English or another foreign language, etc. a few of my friends are teachers and even my husband taught a couple of classes years ago. They all tell me that it is extremely tough on them. Its not that they are bad teachers. They aren't. The problem is with the administration and the parents who short change the children.

Some of the stuff that is taught in school is a waste of time. When I was in high school, I learned more on my own than I did in the actual classes. I admit, I slept through several classes and yet I came out with good grades (except for math and chemistry. I didn't do to well on those :( ).

I agree with Baneful who said that demotivation is a driving factor in failing schools. Many of these kids are coming from homes that do not reinforce the need for education which is very sad because they are practically set up for failure. Also, what Tsyal Makto said about the lack of hands on learning is especially important. Even when I was in school, although we had a few hands on activities in biology and chemistry, there was still a grave lack of activities that would help to understand the concepts. This is also true in regards to field trips and other activities that would help to not only make learning interesting but it might help to inspire the kids. There is such a lack of imagination and inspiration anymore in teaching children.

As for as online/home schooling, I was home schooled when I was a child and I took some online classes for college. I can honestly say that there are pros and cons to both. One of the pros is the fact that academics can be learned at your own pace and you develop good skills of figuring things out yourself, etc. However, home schooling is as good as the person teaching it (ie. parent or someone else). In my case, my mother (God bless her) did her best. She taught me to read and write but on everything else, she was sorely lacking in the skills necessary to teach math or science or even history. Nor did she have any artistic skills. So, I struggled through math although my brother sailed through because he figured it out himself. As for as science, we learned the very, very basics which is fine in grammar school but not for the higher grades. As for as history, I generally learned that on my own and looking back now, the books that my mom used were woefully inadequate. Sadly, we didn't get any education on music, art, theater, etc when we were in grammar school. It wasn't until later, when we went to a regular public school that we learned any of that.

The major drawback for home/online school is the lack of socialization. Granted, these days it is easier to find some sort of network home school group that gets together for activities, etc but back in the 80's there wasn't that kind of network so it took me a while to be socialized. I'm going to have to disagree with Woodsprite that school is only for academics and nothing else. It is crucial to learn social skills because we are social creatures and you are going to have to learn to get along with other people for the rest of your life. In a home school environment, you are insulated. Sure, there are social interactions with siblings, etc but you are still insulated in a like-minded group instead of learning to interact with other people who look/talk/act/think different from you. In an increasingly global society, it is very important to learn how to work with different groups of people.

In my case, since my dad was in the Army, we came into contact with different groups of people and some of my friends back then came from very different backgrounds than my own. However, that wasn't enough. I still needed the socialization that only a school could give.

The education system is broken and its in desperate need of reform. There are many reasons why it has happened. I know that these problems go back more than 40 years so nothing is going to change overnight. However, the only thing that can happen is for us to take control of our own educations and continue to learn, to improve ourselves, and open our minds to new ideas/ etc. That is the only way.