Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

I thought the public school system was created mainly to create workers for the factories and the new jobs that came about with new technology.

A lot of nice ideas are thrown around about an educated electorate, blah, blah, but they are just nice ideas.

We use the factory model to teach children and I don't really think that model necessarily turns out informed citizens with great critical thinking skills (how could it?)

College used to be the place to train leaders, but I think that standards are lower these days (since more kids are going to college now and a lot of them get into college without necessary skills.)

Now, to be a leader, you have to get an advanced degree (or maybe go to some elite private schools your entire life?)

I was trying to respond to this in my own words, but realised I was basically trying to say the same things Val had said in response to it, but nowhere near as articulately. So, "what Val said"

Actually, I do believe in the value of an education population. I just don't think our schools turn out my ideal educated population lol.

My ideal educated population would: have critical thinking skills, ask many questions, know more national and world history, appreciate other cultures, take responsibility for the things they complain about in our country and help to fix them, not be intellectually satisfied by reading about the lives of celebrities, etc.

For the factory model idea... well, I've read many books written by educators who think our schools don't teach things like critical thinking (or that the current system makes it hard to teach these skills.) So my sources are rather biased.

First, our public schools were originally based on the Prussian school system, which was developed purely to indoctrinate the citizens. Second, a lot of ideas in psychology and business converged at one time and the efficient factory model of doing business was applied to educating children. But as we all know, children are not widgets to be manufactured exactly alike.

The system isn't set up to encourage children to seek out new knowledge, learn on their own schedule, delve deeply into whatever is being studied.... Children are seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, but we now know that learning does not happen like that.

We also know that grades are detrimental to learning and many of the other practices we use in schools don't make any sense for how kids really learn (like, younger children play (and learn!) side by side and older kids want to work together. Yet, young children are supposed to work in groups and the older ones mostly work alone.)

Eema,

I definitely agree with you re the importance of education for the sake of it. When I look at what has happened to political debate in here in Australia over the last few years (which is widely agreed to be somewhere near rock bottom), I can't help but think we'd be in a much better place if there was a broader understanding of history, politics, the international community etc.

What makes this a pressing issue as far as I am concerns is that here in Australia most states have only one major newspaper, all of which are owned by the same corporation. The same corporation also shares ownership of Australia's main cable TV provider and currently has one of their executives managing one of our free to air channels. So much for plurality of views!

I guess I see an educated, informed society as essential to enabling democracy to function effectively. Particularly when there is so little diversity in our media (here any way).

I am sitting here wondering if we've ever had such a society (in the US, or Australia, or anywhere) in history.
I think the majority of the population has likely always been mostly uninformed and preoccupied with their day to day survival needs and thus didn't pay much attention to whatever those in power were up to. What do you think?

Maybe we actually have the most educated people in the history of the world, but it still doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe most people just have enough energy to get their day to day survival stuff done and not much left over for the big stuff. Maybe the majority of people just want to watch American Idol and ignore current events.

Is the behavior of most people a function of personality, IQ, income, and / or educational attainment...? (or something else?)

If personality or IQ has anything to do with it, then I'd say things are likely to always be this way. Only those with certain personality traits and / or above a certain level of intelligence will be interested in fixing the problems in society.

If income is the reason, then you'd think all those people not living paycheck to paycheck would be informed active citizens (are they?) If it is educational attainment, we just need to improve our school systems.

Hi Islandofapples,

This is a topic a love, so can go on forever about it - I tried not to... but I couldn't help it... Please don't feel obliged to read it all...

I am certainly not naive enough to think that democracy can ever really be fully functional, but but because something isn't 100% achievable doesn't make it not a worthwhile goal (for example we don't stop trying to improve the health of the community - or even an individual - even though we can never have everyone 100% healthy).

I agree that realistically people's lives get in the way of participating in society in an informed way. Before I had my daughter I read 4 newspapers a day. I was so excited to go on maternity leave because I figured I'd just spend my days bouncing my baby on my knee while I caught up on world events. The reality was I barely picked up a newspaper for 3 years! But it's an easy habit to get out of, which makes a strong media and school system all the more important - because if you're not looking for information it's all the more important that the information you do stumble across is impartial and accurate.

From what I understand we are more educated than ever before and I agree with you that this isn't turning out people who think critically etc. But I think that that is in part because we're not invited to participate in the world as we once were. Don't get me wrong, I love social media and think there many great benefits to it (this board for one), but something is lost in debate and analysis when you can be 'politically active' but hitting a 'like' button on your Facebook page because the gist of it sounds alright. We don't have to use our education in any way.

The head of a major bank here recently came out saying he was concerned about the future of the banking industry because highly educated graduates were coming in on huge salaries without the capacity to analyse the broader implications of their decisions (and obviously he's not alone in his concerns given some of the analysis of the GFC). To me this is where education for the sake of it comes in - to encourage that questioning, that critical thinking. For me an acceptance of education in part promotes being curious about the world and not take what you're told at face value. So even if you're not reading 4 newspapers a day or actively educating yourself, you're still open to ideas and aware there is more than one side to any story.

But for that to be socially acceptable education needs to be valued as more than a means to an end. Which is why I have a strong belief in the importance of the humanities. Today, I feel, education has been reduced in many ways to a competition that has little to do with learning. Which means that once you've got what you need to get the position you aspire to, you stop. You switch on American Idol. You absorb the drip feed of subjective news your exposed to from the bits you see on TV, the headlines you skim and so on.

In terms of where that attitudes to participation come from, I think it's about social norms rather than anything else. Here in Australia we have had a history of working class political acivitism, in fact it forms part of our national identity and mythology - a nation of battlers. But now we've got 'battlers' on 150k a year upset because that's the point that government subsidies drop off. We had a Prime Minister ousted from the job in part because of a concerted effort by some of our wealthiest private mine owners to stop a resource tax which would have stood to benefit smaller miners and the nation as a whole. They played the battler card, and the nation's real battlers rallied to the cause - fed by the monopolized media and a lack of understanding about the realities of the situation. To support the tax in the wider community would have had you labeled as unAustralian (and in fact you were told so during the ads produced by the miners that were on while you watched Australian Idol!)

In my view unless education increases in perceived value for it's own sake, not much will change.

Oh, and in case I hadn't said enough already, the major factor in making education socially acceptable, in my view, is making it relevant. Having options for those people who are more vocationally and practically motivated, options for those people who are artistic and creative, options for those people who are motivated by academics or entrepreneurialism. Accepting that the job of a plumber is just as valid as being a teacher, oil executive , etc.

Hoagies linked to a great presentation today, by Sir Ken Robinson. It's on changing educational paradigms - you've probably already seen it as I think I saw it some time ago, but it is great. Maybe not so many ideas on how to fix it - but a good summary on what isn't working. I'm typing on my iPad and couldn't get the you tube URL to work, so this is the TED link: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html

I'll stop now!

Great discussion--
Can I just say ditto to eema, Val and Giftodd?


Interesting question. A blend of each perhaps? If it were purely educational attainment or income, then I would expect each of those groups to be unified in its world view, which does not appear to be the case. Nor does it seem to me that personality on its own can determine, since environment, opportunity and experience surely shape priorities.

Re: the earlier question about the origin of public schools. My recollection is that compulsory education in the United States was largely motivated by a combination of immigration and labor issues. Placing children in school kept them out of the factories where they could be hired for less money, which depressed wages and job opportunities for adults trying to support families. Additionally, it kept unemployed youth off of the streets where they could cause trouble.
I can't find a link that relates to the job competition aspect, although it is something I recall learning both in my history of education class and my labor history classes. There are various articles that talk about the compulsory education movement happening alongside child labor movements, but these seem to focus on the impacts of child labor on children rather than the impacts of child labor on adult labor.

Americans were also reacting to immigration and saw schools as a way to assimilate immigrants, rather than to have immigrants change the dominant culture. There used to be a much bigger emphasis on the teaching of citizenship in school with the explicit goal of educating children to become good citizens of the United States.

America at School

It's interesting to recall some of that history at a time when there is so much discussion about discipline issues in schools and about the cost of providing services to english language learners.

I read about efforts at assimilation in Texas in the early 20th century; ouch! The schools could get quite mean to children who were caught speaking their native language (interestingly, they were after German immigrants, not Mexicans).


My eldest went to a French immersion school and speaks French like a native (albeit with a smaller vocabulary, but the accent is perfect and his grammar is excellent for his age level).

The school simply spoke to the kids in French and had extra bi-weekly classes for the ones who needed help. Everyone who finished more than about three years at that school had a fantastic grasp of the language, in spite of the fact that it wasn't the playground language, nor is it widely spoken in California.

The problem may be somewhat more challenging because we have so many Spanish speakers, but it's hard to say. At some point, though, there definitely has to be motivation in the home or in the student to learn the language well enough to succeed in the job market. Do any teachers here know how well the average immigrant student learns English after 6 or 12 years?

I like the idea of emphasizing the idea of citizenship in schools. It's important for every student to understand how the government works and the responsibilities of each citizen.

For a broad coverage of the history of education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

This is pretty concise.

http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html


As you can see, public education began long before industrialization did.

What is interesting is that large parts of the US were highly literate prior to compulsory public schooling. IIRC during the Revolutionary War, literacy among non-blacks was around 90 percent for the entire adult population. And almost all of the adults' education was based upon reading the bible, poetry, Latin and Greek works - and translations, circulars, and works and plays in English. Basically, an autodidactical liberal arts education. People did this on their own after a day of manual labor in candlelight.

Most people today could not read "Paradise Lost" and get even 5% of the allusions, yet I bet half of the population back then could get 20-40% of the allusions. Many works like "Paradise Lost" are really works of history and social commentary cloaked as fiction and a thorough understanding of them becomes a framework within which to compare the events in one's life and the events of the greater world.

Are we any better off today with the huge investment in education?