Education Manifesto

School, it consumes our life. Some would even say that school is their life and for most people this statement proves to be true, for 12-16 years of their life. There are 365 days in a year and about 270 of those days are spent in school, with 7-8 hours per day in the classroom not including the amount of time spent outside of class on homework.  Our lives quickly begin to revolve around school; for 12-16 years our thoughts consist of grades, homework, projects, and tests. With all of this time spent in school that must mean that society sees it as an importance for each individual’s life. Although the age old question still remains, “what is the purpose of education? What is the expected outcome?” I believe that the purpose of education should be for individuals to learn how to become critical thinkers, having their own views and opinions. This means that they should have freedom in their thoughts. Through critical thinking they will be able to find meaning and value in their education.  

            As a college student I believe that my vision for education is more applicable. In the earlier years of schooling sometimes it’s frowned upon if an individual has an entirely different opinion then the majority. In my current education experience I believe that my vision is seen as a good thing. Students are asked to think more critically. It isn’t enough that one knows the answer to a question but to go deeper, being asked the question why. Students shouldn’t be afraid to challenge themselves in their thinking. I’ve discovered that being asked the question why is a scary thing because many times the answering the question why takes a lot of critical thinking and having evidence to back up my case.  

The professors that I have encountered I think have done a fine job at allowing their students to think critically. They do not simply want students to regurgitate what they have told them but for students to form their own views and opinions with evidence provided in a way that makes sense. I would challenge the professors that dislike when student’s views differ from their own to allow their students to think critically. Each individual comes from a different background and has had different experiences in their life that make them who they are today.  When we think critically we can learn from one another.  In my future assignments I will continue to express my views even though they may differ from the professors or the majority. Critical thinking is a hard task to achieve; sometimes expressing our view and opinions is a scary thing to do because we don’t want to be the odd one out. Students at Trinity Christian College should feel comfortable being able to think critically and express their views. Professors on the other hand should allow for student to think critically and engage in open dialogue. After the remaining years of my college career I hope to graduate as an individual with my own views and opinions that have come about from critical thinking.

When I become an Elementary teacher, I hope to instil my vision for education in my students.  Instead of merely knowing information I want them to think critically about the information they learn. I will ask them the question “why?” In the classroom that I observed this semester (Fall 2013) my cooperating teacher did a good job of pushing her students thinking; she wanted to make sure they had a clear understanding of what they were learning.  Asking them the question “why?” leads them to thinking more critically. This critical thinking from an early age will translate into their adult life. I want students to not just know information and be able to regurgitate it back but to know why they believe something. I also want them to think beyond the surface; ask deeper questions. There is no better place to question and discover than school. A teacher shouldn’t just say because I said so but encourage a student to find out for themselves.

Philosopher John Dewey author of Democracy and Education was an advocate for connecting what is learned in school with real-life experiences having meaning and value in their lives.  In chapter 1 Dewey says that the danger of formal education is that the subject matters of school would be isolated from the subject matter of life-experiences. “There is the standing danger that the material of formal instruction will be merely the subject matter of the schools, isolated from the subject matter of life-experience. Thus we reach the ordinary notion of education: the notion which ignores its social necessity and its identity with all human association that affects conscious life, and which identifies it with imparting information about remote matters (chapter 1, pg. 9.”  When the tests are finished and the class is passed, how has that information transferred into our lives? That is the question we should be asking; Dewey raises a very good point when it comes to finding meaning in what students are learning. When students are pushed to think critically the information they learn gains meaning and value for them.  Students should be exposed to many different views and opinions but have the freedom to come to their own conclusion.

            Author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire emphasized the importance of students as individuals with minds and thoughts of their own. One teaching method that he believes is used in schools today is the banking model education system. The banking method refers to students as the depositories and teachers as the depositors. Teachers provide students with information that they receive, memorize, and repeat. He believes that because of this method humans are not able to grow in their understanding and knowledge of the world because he believes that humans aren’t give room for free thought which allows for change in the society. He believes that we should be using the problem-posing model where everyone is a student; teachers have no authority over students but learn from them. Through this system the class is run in a dialogue manner; everyone contributes their thoughts with no right answer. I don’t believe that students should hold equal authority with the teacher but I do believe that they should have the freedom to express their views. “It is not our role to speak to the people about our own view of the world, nor to attempt to impose that view on them, but rather to dialogue with the people about their view and ours (Freire, pg. 77).” Students should be able to have freedom of thought in school without having views that are imposed on them.

            Freire has the theory of the “dialogicity” of education, it is understood as education as a practice of freedom. He believes that education should be like a dialogue. A classroom should be run in a dialogue sort of way where one person doesn’t exceed in power over another. He breaks down the word “dialogue” into two different dimensions it is reflection and action. Human existence must work in a way that each person is dialoguing with one another in order to have changed; one person can’t impose all of their knowledge onto another person(s). The dialogicity theory brings us back to Friere’s idea that one person shouldn’t be superior to another even in a classroom. There is no distinction between teacher and student but both are learners.  He has these same ideas in chapter three. He illustrates this through a quote found on page 74, “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B” mediated by the world-a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it.” In an actual classroom this would work by a teacher giving his/her view on something and allowing the classes to dialogue on the topic with no one correct answer. He believes that it’s important that individuals become masters of their own thinking and discussing with others their views.  He would want a classroom to be more of an open forum set up. When a teacher is not imposing all of their views on the students this allows them to think critically for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

            A reading in this course that I believe does not support my vision of education is the book Between Memory and Vision written by Steven Vryhof. In this book Vryhof made a case for the importance for faith based schools in establishing a functional community,  “a community that enjoys value consistency, a shared understanding of what the world is about, what is important, and how the group should live, and intergenerational closure, the adult-child relationships and the opportunities to activate them (Vryhof, pg 4).” This is where I disagree with Vryhof when it comes to the reasoning for faith based schools. Faith based schools from an early age imposes views on the child as to where they become sheltered from other views outside of the community. School should be a place where students are exposed to different views and opinions than their own; parents should reinforce to their child what they believe but it is then up to the child to come to their own conclusion. In my own educational experience I attended a public school and was exposed to different religions and views on many different topics, having these experiences only strengthened my faith. It also allowed me to be a light to those in my school, “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. ¹⁵ Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house (Matt. 5:14).”  A functional community is that light under a bowl; we shouldn’t hide and shelter ourselves away from the rest of the world but spread the light of Jesus Christ everywhere, even in our public schools. In my vision for education I believe that school is a place where it is ok for individuals to have different views and opinions then their teachers and classmates. This allows them to think more critically about what they believe and why as well as being introduced to other beliefs.  When an individual is raised in a Christian school from elementary to high school they are not always given the chance to be introduced to other views and opinions because they were so sheltered by their community that shared the same views. When they are then released from the care of that community they then figure out if what they were sheltered into was a faith that was real for them or just real for their parents. The public school allows for students to express their views and opinions more openly and in a place where their presence has the ability to bring about change. The Great Commission calls Christians to spread the gospel, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).” The decision to attend a Christian college was one that I decided on my own accord.  My parents, friends; and family had no say in the decision. Through my time at a public school I was able to develop my own views and beliefs in an unbiased atmosphere.

            Much of our lives are spent in school; about 12-16 years, 270 days a year, 5 days a week, and 7-8 hours a day. When graduation day comes and all that a student has gained is a mind full of facts then the education system is flawed. Student should be critical thinkers by time they graduate. That knowledge that they have gained should allow them to develop their own views and opinions of the world in which we live not imposed on them by others.

Finding Meaning and Value in Education

All it takes is one glance to know that there is room for improvement; the one glance that I’m referring to is towards the American education system.  Philosopher John Dewey recognized this about 100 years ago when he wrote Democracy and Education. As well as another prominent education philosopher from the 1960’s Paulo Freire author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  In both of their books they challenge the current education system and why it’s not working but also offers suggestions as to how it can be improved. The suggestions are his themes throughout the book.  After reading Democracy and Education and Pedagogy of the Oppressed I discovered that both Dewey and Freire share common themes. The main theme that I would like to dive deeper into is the importance of students learning information that is both meaningful and has value to them outside of the classroom.

 I still remember hearing over in over in high school students in algebra asking the teacher, “When am I ever going to use this in real life?” Students ask this question all throughout their schooling and teachers never really have a concrete answer to this question. The suggestion that Dewey offers to give reasoning to this questioning is that maybe we need to re-evaluate why certain material is being taught. According to Freire the information that is learned in school should be able to transfer into the real world in order to make a difference.  They would both be in agreement with the understanding that students shouldn’t be taught information that can’t translate to real world application in some way; instead of producing regurgitating robots of useless information we need people that will come to their own understandings and change the world with their knowledge. When students are learning material that has no real world application, why should they have to learn the material?

In the first chapter of Democracy and Education, Dewey says that the danger of formal education is that the subject matters of school would be isolated from the subject matter of life-experiences. “There is the standing danger that the material of formal instruction will be merely the subject matter of the schools, isolated from the subject matter of life-experience. Thus we reach the ordinary notion of education: the notion which ignores its social necessity and its identity with all human association that affects conscious life, and which identifies it with imparting information about remote matters (Dewey, pg. 9).”  He brings up a relevant point because both students and teachers should know why the information  they’re teaching/learning is necessary.

Freire also states in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that he believes that this type of education impairs students as well. The method that he used to describe this is the banking model education system. “This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filling, and storing the deposits…knowledge emerges only through intervention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other (Freire, pg. 53).” Teachers provide students with information that they receive, memorize, and repeat; because of this method humans are unable to grow in their understanding and knowledge of the world because they aren’t given room for free thought. Both philosophers believe that students are storing up a catalogue of useless information. Learning is just as much for the individual as it is for the good of the whole society. When we are fed information like Freire explains with his banking model method according to Dewey students begin to isolate school from life experiences. The knowledge gained through school should be applicable outside of the classroom.

 
Recognizing that there is a problem with the education system is the first step towards reforming the system but next there must be a plan of action; Dewey and Friere recognize that there is a problem and they provide us with ways of reformation. One of the similar solutions that they have is the importance of dialogue and community among students.  

Freire’s theory of the “dialogicity” of education is education as a practice of freedom. He believes that education should be like a dialogue. A classroom should be run in a dialogue sort of way where one person doesn’t exceed in power over another. He breaks down the word “dialogue” into two different dimensions it is reflection and action. Human existence must work in a way that each person is dialoguing with one another in order to have changed; one person can’t impose all of their knowledge onto another person(s). “…dialogue is the encounter in which the united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanized (Friere, pg.71).” The importance of dialogue roots deeply into the overall philosophy of Freire; he believes that no person should be superior to anyone in a classroom that includes the teacher. There is no distinction between teacher and student but both are learners. He illustrates this through a quote found on page 74, “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B” mediated by the world-a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it.” In an actual classroom this would work by a teacher giving his/her view on something and allowing the classes to dialogue on the topic with no one correct answer. He believes that it’s important that individuals become masters of their own thinking and discussing with others their views; He would want a classroom to be set up as more of an open forum.

Dewey also has many similarities to this same idea of Freire when it comes to dialogue in context of the community. He connects his view of education to the needs and strengths of the democratic society he believes that school should be a community.  School is a place of companionship and shared activity, school should be a social atmosphere as well. In a school community everyone works together for one common goal similar to a democracy we must all work together. I agree with Dewey in a democracy it is imperative that we make compromises and to focus on the benefits of others as whole.  He believes that school should empower students to use the information learned and apply it to the real world through their own critical thinking and understanding. He would probably favor an authority figure as oppose to Friere but an authority figure with minimal power. Freire and Dewey believe that our own personal reflections and understanding of the world shouldn’t stem from the sole views of an authority figure; we must have use our own mind and with that influence our communities for the better.

I agree with both John Dewey’s and Paulo Freire’s view on the importance of students learning information that is both meaningful and has value to them outside of the classroom. Hopefully through their suggestions of reforming the education system we are able to build a more fruitful community of learners. Where students will be encouraged to think for themselves and influence their community with the knowledge gained through school.

Standardized Test as an Ideology

October 4, 2013
          After reading the book Hope in Troubled Times by Bob Goudwaard, Mark Vander Vennen, and David Van Heemst my view of ideology has been redeveloped. I am now able to see the world in a different light realizing that there are many ideologies. It’s my responsibility to not become a slave to these ideologies as well as reminding others to do the same while pointing them to the only hope in this world and that’s Jesus.

The problem with ideologies is that they are everywhere in our world, even in the education system. One element of education that I believe bears some tendencies towards an ideology are the standardized state/national tests that students take each year.  Learning is no longer learning for the sake of learning but learning to pass the tests. Although the education system is flawed there are possibilities for solutions along the way.

            First, it is important to understand the concept of ideology presented in Hope in Troubled Times. The originator of the term “ideology” is Destutt de Tracy he defines ideology as the focus on ideas in their purest form for the purpose of achieving a social end (pg. 33). The goal is to almost wipe clean the ideas that others may have in order to regulate and manipulate them for the purpose of achieving a societal end.  There are three elements that make up an ideology. The first element is a societal goal and in this case it would be that all students are learning. A societal goal starts off as something that is good.

The second element is a redefinition of currently held values, norms, and ideas to an extent that they legitimize in advance the practical pursuit of the predetermined end (pg. 33). This would be the idea that there needs to be a way to determine that all students are performing at grade level.  The practical pursuit used to see students’ progresses are standardized tests that are given at the end of a school year. Testing students is generally looked at negatively among students and educators but it’s used because it’s the most convenient measure to evaluate student’s achievement but not the most effective.

This leads into the last element which is selecting the means by which a goal can be effectively achieved (pg. 33). The means used to determine that the goal was effectively achieved as stated previously is evaluated by the standardized tests. All students are expected to score at a proficient level which is supposedly an accurate gage that evaluates their knowledge. This absolute goal has corrupted the education system. The original goal was that all students are learning; the goal has now transformed into are all students able to score proficiency on the standardized test. Teachers are no longer teaching for the students to learn for fun but to learn enough to score proficient on the standardized tests.

Therefore the education system is following an ideology because learning is no longer the absolute goal but the results of the tests scores to determine if a student is learning.

           

The book discussed many contemporary ideologies such as: identity, material progress, and guaranteed security. I believe that the ideology of the education system falls behind the contemporary ideology of material progress (pg.85). Before I go any further what needs to be understood is that schools in the city usually have lower test scores while schools in the suburban middle class areas usually do well on their standardized tests. The question is, “Shouldn’t all students no matter their environment score at state standard?” That’s the goal for the tests is to have all students in the United States scoring at a proficiency level but that scale seems to fluctuate from environment to environment. One of the economic trends mentioned in the book is the poverty paradox; this is an unequal distribution of wealth where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (pg. 87). This same poverty paradox can be seen through the education system.

            
       As schools increase in wealth they become more academically strong, when schools decrease in wealth they become less academically strong. Wealth is generally generated in direct correlation with the results of these tests. The problem is that instead of improving the poorer schools the wealthier schools are given more money as a sort of incentive for their good test scores. More money is going to give them better teachers, resources, and extracurricular activities. While many city schools are suffering from lack of finances, limited resources, and few extracurricular activities. There is no way to prove that these standardized tests can determine the knowledge of students with so many inconsistences that lie in the way between poorer schools and wealthier schools.

The goal for standardized tests are to determine that students are learning in there school, which is a good goal to have. But, instead of the test being a review of what students should have learned it’s turned into: this is what my students have to know by time they take the test or else what they have learned counts for nothing if it can’t be evaluated through the test. This is unfair to those in a disadvantage school or for students that don’t test well. We’ve become so dedicated to this process of how education works that it would be hard to change. The tests have become an idol because they become our end goal in education; our goal should be that students are learning and that they learn to love learning.
The book offered three guidelines for hope that can counteract this ideology of the education systems current state.  The three guidelines are: the minesweeper, the rope ladder and the periscope (pg. 180). The guideline for hope that I think works best for the scope of education and students learning is the rope ladder guideline.  The rope ladder guideline is a requirement that all people work together to solve one problem. The process requires a step by step technique for example when we redefine our purpose for education this can improve the whole scope of our schools.  Reforming the scope of our education system that is so test based would be very difficult. The process would be a process of trial and error; it would require many people that are committed to this vision. It might even require working with people outside of our country to form a plan.

American schools have a very poor education when being compared with other schools around the world. First, small steps would have to be made this is something that would take years to reform a decade or two. The first step would be to research and go to the schools overseas that are doing well. We would use those schools as model schools. From there we would start with one school district in the United States that is doing poorly and reform it to model the overseas schools. When we reform it to model the overseas school is will be important to keep in mind our own visions and to only take bits and pieces of their system. We need to reclaim the goal of students learning for the enjoyment of learning and this can only be done when we all develop this vision.