What should students learn after they are literate and numerate at a functional level? Here's one argument for why mathematical proofs matter. Matt Rognlie offers some pros and cons of studying 'classics' (although he is less charitable towards some than others).
This question is tricky because it's really a matter of the purpose of education, but in a very specific sense. If we want to satisfy the consumption goal, should students read To Kill a Mockingbird? I mean, I loved it, but a lot of people don't. What about The Old Man and the Sea? That one I couldn't stand. From a consumption perspective, shouldn't we be telling everyone to read more Tolkien? Or letting students choose from an array of comic books? How do we know what readings now will give students more satisfaction in ten and twenty years time?
If, on the other hand, we are after productivity, then all education tends to become vocational, doesn't it? We could argue back and forth a bit about how best to develop "critical thinking skills" and other abstract tools many workers will need, but in general the idea becomes clear: let students try many things, and as they demonstrate interest or aptitude in one, narrow down their training to the specific skills they'll use in that profession. This makes moving between different kinds of jobs more difficult, but these days it usually doesn't pay to be a generalist.
If it's signaling we want to promote, of course, then we have a bit more leeway. The goal is to show a willingness and ability to endure the kinds of pain that you would only do if you really had the traits and talents employers are looking for. Of course, there are lots of ways to endure pain; Hemingway is just one option. Knowledge bowl with canings for the loser would work just as well.
Different cultures have relied on different mixes of these goals throughout history, and some are easier to figure out than others. China has had, since ancient times, a major emphasis on exams determining vocation; it seems to me that this is primarily a signaling education. In aristocratic societies, it seems to largely be a matter of consumption. Western societies have for at least a couple centuries now focused on creating workers with identical skill sets---particularly the "don't question the boss" skill---well suited for factory work, call centers, or middle management.
What should the mix of educational goals look like? What would education that served this mix well look like? What mix(es) would be acceptable from a Christian worldview, and are there any that must be categorically rejected?
(PS - I know some readers may want to say that none of these goals is in line with a Christian worldview, since the goal of education should be "raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and ultimately God's glory comes above all other goals. Well, OK, sure. I contend that you're still going to promote God's glory by nurturing and admonishing in a way that combines consumption, productivity, and signaling. The question is what types of consumption, productivity, and signaling best promote God's glory, and what combinations implicitly refuse to nurture and admonish. So I'm not looking for a Mardel's answer, nor even the Reformed equivalent. Dig deep here, people.)
HOW I FEEL WHEN I’M TWO WEEKS OUT FROM QUALS
9 years ago
Posts
9 comments:
Excellent, as always. I love talking about education. (I haven't read the links at the beginning of the post yet, but I plan to.)
My perspective at the moment leans toward throwing lots of different types of things at kids and seeing what sticks. Or really more letting them roll around in the world and see what sticks. I think that may be the best way to develop the individual talents and callings that Yahweh gives each Christian. But, unlike the radical unschooling crowd, I think there are points at which the parent/teacher must insist on discipline and follow-through, even if the student has lost interest.
I also think that perhaps there isn't as much of a divide between consumption and productivity if you do it right. If you're learning productivity for a field you really enjoy and are called to, that will overlap with consumption quite a bit, no?
I like Jessie's observation about consumption and productivity.
When I read your first post on the topic, my reaction was to think there should be a fourth category with parts of both consumption and productivity. There should be a certain shared knowledge among educated citizens of a democratic republic, and that knowledge should also help shape and mold students' characters such that they are virtuous citizens. So there should be a certain required consumption of knowledge but we need to expand our understanding of productivity away from strictly utilitarian terms to include an individual's virtue and his or her relation to society and the state (our alma mater is supposedly "for city and state"...did that really come through in our time there?)
I think there should be a drastically trimmed core (much less than the current gen-ed classes, but which is consistent from student to student, university to university and state to state). It should engage the most difficult questions of human existence. In Christian schools, naturally there would be a Christian take. But students would still read the Koran, Confucius, Marx, etc., because they're important in order to understand our world. Mastery of these fundamental issues would be signaled through grades, uncorrupted by inflation.
The majority of the education, though, would be in the more typical understanding of consumption and productivity, preparing for a job and learning what is needed or wanted. Signaling for the job specific parts of an education would be accomplished how it is now: quality and reputation of an institution with grades (hopefully also not rendered too insignificant by inflation).
Suppose we talk about education as a means of character formation. That doesn't seem to be consumption - the student is not learning just because he enjoys it. It also isn't exactly productivity - we might hope that our responsible and honest and sensible pupil can get a job, but that's really a side benefit. Nor is it really precisely signalling - ethics are by definition not something you do in order to be observed doing them.
So... how does that fit into your graph?
I hadn't read your comment, Chris. Your redefinition of productivity to include virtue is plausible, but I'm not entirely satisfied - it seems very industrial, not to say statist. But perhaps I misunderstand you.
I'm really loving this discussion, guys. I'll chime in to say that productivity doesn't just have to mean in a paid employment sense. Consumption represents things that increase your own satisfaction, while productivity represents things that increase someone else's satisfaction.
In the case of building character, the one we are satisfying is either the state or God (depending on how we think about character and citizenship).
Signaling is about credibly revealing true information about yourself. So grade inflation, is as far as it makes it harder to tell different people's productivity, destroys the signal.
Those things said, I'd be interested to see a discussion of what constitutes a 'virtuous citizen' and 'character formation' at Enchanted Postmodern, Pastoral Pesto, or (ideally) both. The terms are pretty vague, but if these are essential goals of education I'd like to see a lot more clearly what it is a school is supposed to be accomplishing. In particular, I'm interested in what observable differences we would see between a 'virtuous citizen' and the alternative ('nefarious citizen'?). I suspect that, while the cause may be different (and importantly so), the effects will look a lot like conventional approaches to consumption, productivity, and signaling.
@Joel Like I said, I didn't like the given categories, but I tried to work within them. I think we agree.
Virtue formation is only tangentially related to productivity and consumption, although Norman seems to want to define them as broadly as possible so as to make the inclusion possible. Yes, individuals are more productive in an eternal, moral sense when they have better virtue. But try finding metrics for that. Consumption is the same thing: yes, in the long run building virtue increases your satisfaction, but it's kind of hard to quantify.
My mom is doing a MA in Christian education right now, and someone gave her the absurd assignment of creating a grading rubric for a class on character formation. She asked for my thoughts and I brushed it off as ridiculous. I think the biggest problem you are going to have is that virtue formation, civic engagement, and building character are impossible to measure. You may know them in part in a relational sort of way, but even then, teachers can only know so much. Fat chance measuring "progress" in such categories.
I think this is one reason we've moved away from them: you can't quantify them. But that doesn't make them any less real or any less necessary.
What we'd be looking for ultimately are signs of a strong community: parents bringing misbehaving kids in to apologize to teachers or coaches, teachers alerting parents to kids' immoral activity and proper discipline resulting, good intergenerational discussions following lectures...
@Chris, you said "You may know them in part in a relational sort of way, but even then, teachers can only know so much. Fat chance measuring "progress" in such categories."
I have to wonder why we would want something so difficult to formally observe, or even formally define, to be taught by formal schooling. I didn't mean to redefine productivity so broadly as to allow it to encompass virtue; rather, I meant to convey that whatever part of virtue it makes sense to teach in school must of necessity be close to my definition of production.
"I think this is one reason we've moved away from them: you can't quantify them."
I agree, but given your presentation here I don't see why this is a bad thing. It doesn't mean we have to move away from raising Godly, virtuous children; it just means that trying to teach in a classroom something that can neither be well defined nor accurately observed is not a good way to do things.
Indeed, I don't see how the things you list in your final paragraph can be taught in a school. Even if they can, aren't there better, less formal ways to communicate them to future generations?
So my contention is that insofar as the things we call 'virtue' and 'character' are things that are taught and learned well in a classroom, they are really just facets of consumption, productivity, and signaling. Insofar as they are the intangible, unquantifiable things you insist they are, they're not good formal curriculum (although I of course think they are important things for students to learn).
Perhaps another way to think of it is this: we may wish to promote virtue and character, but as you say, they are quite unobservable both as they are taught and as they are learned. Only with long individual experience can we tell if the lessons are learned, and even then we can't generalize out from that particular experience.
If we make this the goal of schooling, this means that there's no way for a teacher to know if he is doing his job or not. You can't make a lesson plan with a goal in mind if you have no idea whether the goal is promoted or hindered by what you're doing.
The only thing a teacher can do in this case is to hope virtue and character develop as side effects of promoting consumption, productivity, and signaling. I feel fairly comfortable that if we look at the history of education throughout the world, even those systems which make promoting character and virtue their stated goals end up looking like this in practice.
So what sort of consumption, productivity, and signaling mix is most likely to generate virtue and character as side effects? Because in practice, I think even your approach ultimately comes down to this question.
Ok, here are two tangible ways teachers can promote virtue:
1) By choosing texts to read and topics to discuss which get at moral themes. Cicero used to be a model of style and virtue for countless generations of schoolchildren. He was great for countries engaged in building empires; perhaps not so much today. But maybe we find other individuals, writers, or stories which help us contemplate and evaluate our own actions.
2) By keeping in mind that a strong moral formation is more important than consumption and productivity. There is a tendency to disregard virtue in favor of the more quantifiable parts of education. But at certain moments a teacher will have the ability to direct students towards thinking about virtue or discipline them in a way that helps form their character. Many times the tendency will be to focus on the "essential": learning whatever knowledge, passing a test, getting into college. And at those moments an aware teacher will be able to make an impact, rather than just being a cog in a machine: inputting information and controlling group settings.
Post a Comment