The American education system is something to which I can easily relate, as I take part in it by being a Penn State student. Unfortunately, many people do not question the current quality of public education because it is taken as an immoveable precedent which essentially serves its purpose. Currently, articles, debates, and other forms of media and communication explore a variety of subtopics and controversies within the broad scope of the American public educational system. Some of these issues include the debt accumulation for college students, the role of the teacher in education, and the relative autonomy shared between the variety of administrators and instructors in the educational setting. However, we first must ask, “What is the purpose of learning?” I do not mean public education, nor do I mean the institution of education in any form. I am referring to the purpose of learning as an entity completely separate from education.
To me, the purpose of learning is to explore one’s consciousness through the acquisition of experiences. Learning certainly does not refer to the accumulation of the knowledge it takes to operate in American society, although the vast majority of people (on both sides of the aisle) seem to agree to this very conception. One of the most basic arguments of public education involves the value of learning, specifically, if learning is meant to be a personal exploration of the mind and the world or a standardized method to produce proper, hard-working citizens of the American economy. Regardless of my preconceived notions of what learning is, the institution of public education closely follows the latter conception of learning.
As a public institution, education must be working towards the improvement of society, rather than the improvement of an individual, which is perfectly logical if we accept the fact that humans are social creatures who depend on societal entities and other associations to influence and shape who they are. Moving past all of the philosophical hullaballoo, the fact remains that public education is here to stay, and that is the basis for the rearing of young and adolescent minds in the United States.
Even so, the question of personalization vs. standardization continues to play into today’s form of public education in this country. If the goal of public education is to produce responsible citizens of a nation who are devoted and willing to work towards its goals and defend its founding principles, is it better for students to all be taught the same thing? Or would it be better for each student to be taught differently according to his or her determined needs and (possibly) interest?
Both standardization and personalization have obvious pros and cons. Standardized education allows for every child to have a completely equal opportunity for “success” in society because what each student learns is essentially the same, promoting the sense of equality on which this nation was based. Also, students who share the same educational background are more likely to relate to another and unify due to their shared experience, and unity is an essential aspect of the “ideal” American nation. Unfortunately, standardized education does not guarantee that each child will adequately acquire and apply the education he or she needs to thrive in American society. Some students learning quicker than others, as well as more effectively, and standardization within the context of public education merely ignores this blatant issue.
On the other hand, personalization does allow for different students to learn in different manners and at different paces. This is certainly effective in producing productive citizens that are able to fulfill the variety of roles within a society. However, personalization does not generate citizens with similar mindsets, necessarily. The more diversified an education system becomes, the less likely it is to produce equally prepared students in terms of their relative preparedness for entering and thriving in society. Also, personalized education is not practical in that it is expensive and requires diverse teachers and learning equipment.
Upon considering the pros and cons of each education method, it becomes apparent that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Legislators are currently debating WHERE in the middle public education belongs. Before exploring the solutions to the cons of both methods and prior to synthesizing them into one uniform methodology, it is important to recognize what the issues are so that they can be methodically resolved.
I look forward to exploring the complexities of public education this semester and possibly deducing some sort of answer for myself regarding the vast issues encompassed by the topic. Thanks for reading!
Stay fly and goodbye!
-Dan