Tag Archives: education

A Question of Purpose: Education

Throughout this semester’s Civic Issues blog, I have explored how many different aspects of our culture and society affect how we provide and receive education in the United States.  It is complex, flawed, while also great and innovative.  We have come so far in history so that America’s education caters – albeit sometimes at different levels of effectiveness – to both genders and a variety races and nationalities.  But for we college students who have successfully made it to the other side in mandatory public education, I feel inclined to present a question for your mulling over: What really is the purpose of it all?

Is the goal of public education to prepare citizens for a “required” higher education necessary to get a job? Think about it.  More people go to college than ever before, but are we necessarily a smarter population?  Degree inflation runs rampant.  Couple tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and some college grads are back for round two with the parents while waiting tables at the local restaurant.  Of course, there’s nothing wrong with waiting tables ( do it – it’s super fun), but what was the point of going to school? Societal pressure? No, this isn’t an answer.

In contrast, according to Spring’s The Goal of Public Schooling, the opening statement of the U.S. Department of Education’s A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, the goal is not for you own good, but the good of the country.  “Satisfying the demand for highly skilled workers is the key to maintaining competitiveness and prosperity in the global economy”.  Not that there’s anything inherently bad about this – but this is for America, people.  In fact, the book also blatantly reads, “Parents are not asked at the schoolhouse door what they want their children to learn and how they want their children to be taught; these decisions are made by a complex political process”.  Rather, public schooling operates on the public interest.  But here I ask you, is this dangerous?  Because primary and most secondary schooling is required, one could infer that educational institutions can serve as driving forces in indoctrinating a young population with specific political and economic ideologies.  After all, Nazism was enforced outside and within the classroom walls, as fascism, German superiority, and undying devotion to the Führer was instilled into minds that had no other choice.  Oh, you say, but that’s Nazi Germany.  And yet, have you ever wondered how an American high school history class in America differs from an American history class taught in Germany – in any other country for that matter?  Where does utilizing history to learn critical thinking skills and gain insight into the human condition cross over into territory of indoctrination?  No, using students as political chess players and economic weapon-wielders should not be the primary goal of education either.

However, some do argue that the purpose of public schooling is in order to instill good values in accordance to good citizenship, all this being required to maintain a functioning republican government.  According to Gastil, deliberation as a means of a successful government can only successfully occur with proper education of citizens.  Is that not the point of this Rhetoric and Civic Life? Which, in a way, we have to take?

And yet many students, including many voices within this very class, instead advocate for a different education; an education for the purpose of our own personal intellectual stimulation.  After all, we’re the ones making the investment; is it so selfish to elevate personal benefit above all else? I challenge you to think about why you’re here in college, and also how you benefitted from the past twelve years of public education.

And also,

what would you change?

Finlandophilia

In issues of education, it is hard to ignore politics.  Trust me, I’ve been trying to avoid specific educational policy discussions in favor of more unexpected topics; in reality, however, education’s success relies on policy in such a way that I would be doing my Civic Issues blog a disservice to not address the relationship.  After all, it seems to be a constant battle and perpetual discussion within legislatures and educational institutions themselves.  Little did I know, in my quest to uncover the varying, conflicting, and cooperative ideas of what the picture of education should look like, I would instead discover that the conversation is rooted in a discussion of values.  Also, I would come to discover Finlandophilia.

Apparently, discussions about Finland’s educational success have been taking place since it started entrancing and baffling nations – including the United States, and even Finland itself – by the nation’s exceptional scores in reading, mathematics, and science in the OECDs, or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, conducted by PISA to survey world’s varying educational systems.  A far cry from our expected international competitors and their accompanying cultures often defined by overworking, pressure, and performance (here’s looking at you, East Asia), Finland offered an oddly different perspective that seems to go against everything Americans push for in education.

For one, Finnish students don’t take standardized tests, save for one National Matriculation Exam around the end of high school.  Most of us, however, would not have a hard time agreeing with the issues of standardized testing: they encroach on valuable class time and space for teaching and curriculum, stifle passion for learning, and offer poor incentives for funding.  For more information on these examinations’ many insufficiencies, just consult Priyanka. However,  what do we, as Americans, have to say about Finland’s decision to not start formal schooling until age 7? Or that the private sector is completely shut out of education, with no private schools or private universities in existence? How would Americans react to the fact that Finland’s education system seemingly rejects the value of competition, a classic American sentiment for driving excellence, in favor of equality? That all Finnish school are virtually the same, with no option to pay up for better education? Would some (here’s looking at you, conservative side) cry socialist?!

While these aspects of Finnish education are enough for adequate deliberation themselves, the most interesting facet of Finlandism in education, in my opinion, is how they approach the role of educators. I do hope that I’m not being too bold here, but I think many can acknowledge the stereotypes attached to Education majors in college.  My best friend Steph, an Education major, will readily adopt an I-took-the-easy-route tone in her voice when asked her major (although, I swear, she is destined to become the most-loved teacher at whichever school she ends up in).  However, educators of all levels seem to be held in a higher esteem in Finland, as indicated by the first couple paragraphs of one NY Times article:

Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author, had a simple question for the high school seniors he was speaking to one morning last week in Manhattan: “Who here wants to be a teacher?” 

Out of a class of 15, two hands went up — one a little reluctantly.

“In my country, that would be 25 percent of people,” Dr. Sahlberg said. “And,” he added, thrusting his hand in the air with enthusiasm, “it would be more like this.”

In his country, Dr. Sahlberg said later in an interview, teachers typically spend about four hours a day in the classroom, and are paid to spend two hours a week on professional development. At the University of Helsinki, where he teaches, 2,400 people competed last year for 120 slots in the (fully subsidized) master’s program for schoolteachers. “It’s more difficult getting into teacher education than law or medicine,” he said. 

Why is there such this pronounced difference in perceptions and responsibilities of educators? And is this high expectation of teachers – the “prestige, decent pay, and lot of responsibility” –  what drives the success of equality-driven Finnish education? After all, there are virtually no standardized tests to keep them accountable, and no outside merit pay rewards and incentives for quality teaching.  There is not even any conventional standardized grading, as students are individually graded by the professional educator.  Educators’ quality is driven by their passion for teaching and growing students which, in turn, trickles down to their students’ matched passion and excellence.

It seems that Finland’s overall approach to education – which may seem choice-deprived on the outside, actually offers a plethora of freedoms: freedom for kids to be kids (oh, did I mention that the Finnish discourage homework?), freedom for teachers to develop their own curriculums and choose their own textbooks, and freedom for students to pursue their own passions within the classroom.  Oh, and overall freedom from the horrible headaches of standardized testing.

But, the ultimate question: would this work in America? We are larger, have more impoverished as well as foreign students, have a lesser teacher-to-student ratio, and often times we simply just value the ability to choose. What can we learn from Finland, and what should we dismiss?

American Education, or American+Foreigners Education?

For my last Civic Issues post, I entwined my topic of choice, Education, with another CI topic – that time, gender.  I think it is important as well as fascinating to explore how the different CI topics relate to each other, so this week I delved into what diversity in education looks like, specifically the issue (or non-issue) of foreign students in higher education.  The presence of these students are harmless, if not beneficial, to many; however, others argue that foreign students’ ability to take American spots in college (and later, possibly the work force) should be monitored or capped.  With all our nation’s talk about immigration reform, I found the system of foreign students’ integration into American society enlightening as well as question-raising.

First off, the facts, because most are probably unaware of the process of the roughly 760,000 foreigner‘s enrollment in U.S. universities, such as our own.  Students must obtain a visa – as a means of permission, almost – in order to study here. However, this specific document (an F-1 visa) holds implications that the students will return to their home countries after their period of study, and they actually must try to prove they will return as a means of acquiring the ticket to U.S. education.  However, it is indeed possible for the graduating student to upgrade his/her F-1 to a temporary work visa that is valid for up to 12 additional months.  Still, many students hope to score the H-1B – the work visa.  Herein lies the controversy, for while some are unhappy with foreigners scooping up the already-scarce American jobs, others argue that bright, foreign students are necessary to America staying ahead (echoing the Option 1 of the in-class Education Deliberation, eh?).  President Obama himself has stated, in regards to foreign students becoming American workers, that “In the global marketplace, we need all the talent we cant attract… we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India.  We want these companies and jobs to take root here.”  Many others share this sentiment, stressing that a large proportion of our country’s companies, innovations, and research discoveries – our country’s success, ultimately – was due to the talent of foreigners on American soil.

Of course, foreigners in the work force often begin as students of the American higher education system, and many colleges and universities share their diversity statistics with pride.  Institutions of higher education may market themselves on the basis of providing prospective students with a more holistic, global education and student body that only their international students provide – a facet that is becoming  increasingly desirable as our society itself continues to undergo globalization.  In my opinion, this too is valid, for I have often heard friends share how cool it was to hear the perspective of the foreign student in their class who can personally relate to class material in a way that Americans can’t.  In class, you and I also are learning the value of diversity of experience and opinion when deliberating certain issues.  However, while international students may be desired for these admirable reasons, there is something else at work here too: money.  Foreign students contribute $21 billion a year to the national economy, and most importantly, they contribute full tuitions.  No financial aid, no scholarships, no in-state tuition.  Colleges and universities are not required to give them anything.  Actually, some colleges actually charge them additionally fees, such as Purdue University’s $1000-$2000 fee. So then, foreigners become an economic advantage, for what exactly makes an American student worth thousands – or tens of thousands, even – of dollars? Beyond filling quotas, essentially nothing.

While there are many sides to the situation of foreign students at American institutions, some may beg the (stasis) question of Definition: is this a problem, even?  Is it so bad that in an increasingly global society, we are accepting global students – especially when we have no problem with studying abroad ourselves? What do you think – does the benefit outweigh the cost of denied entrance, either in college or the work force, of Americans?

 

 

The Hidden Gender Gap

Last semester, I delved deeply into the role of women; my rhetorical analysis and paradigm shift papers both took a close look at the roles, connotations, and expectations that come with being a female in American society.  I still am very much interested in the dynamic of genders and their surrounding culture.  And so, once again, I ask a question about the innate and projected differences between boys and girls, but this time in the face of education: who has it better?

Girls have long been seen as the victims of an inequality that has often left them in the shadow of the boys, and this sentiment has had a history in the field of education as well.  However, increasing research show that as the years have gone by, women are bypassing the men in numerous facets of education; boys not only come in second for enrollment in advanced-level classes, placement on the honor roll, musical and artistic ability, and participation in student government, but boys pull in first for the undesirable drop-out, drug and alcohol use, and crime rates.  The question remains, then: are these statistics merely a cultural shift as a result of women gaining more freedom to pursue excellence on a societal level?  Or rather, are women excelling at such a level as a direct result of a public and higher education system geared toward the girls? Are girls’ innate skills and strengths, on a purely biological and psychological basis, more fitted for our current set-up of schooling?

Regardless of the real reason, society seems to be responding with a little experimentation.  While same-sex education seems to be the norm at private and parochial institutions, gender-segrated public schools have been popping up across the country in the recent years.  Many have enthusiastically advocated on board for same-sex education, passionately preaching about its benefits for both boys and girls, with reasoning including less distractions as well as gender-tailored lessons.   However, conversely and unsurprisingly, some are instead in an uproar over the divided classrooms’ ability to increase gender discrimination.  Most prominently, the American Civil Liberties Union repeatedly claim that such institutions are unlawful for depriving students of equal opportunities in the classroom, and thus have also repeatedly filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education.

Clearly, what can be seen as customized learning could also easily traverse into a detrimental realm of reinforcing gender stereotypes. So in the issue of education, do we celebrate and capitalize on the undeniable biological and developmental differences between genders, or do we continue to keep boys’ and girls’ desks next to each other during the same classroom lesson? In the day and age of personalization, personalized medicine and personalized technology – the ideal  situation is to have an educational layout that is tailored specifically to each individual.  Great teachers aim to find ways to adapt their classrooms to meet the needs of the group learner as well as the individual learner, the visual student as well as the hands-on one, the right-brained dreamers and the left-brained analytical thinkers.  But when this all seems daunting if not impossible, should we compromise by accommodating and personalizing by gender?