Six Ways We’ve Redefined Education

A good friend of mine teaches high school here in Canada and while she loves the job because of the interaction with students, from her stories I would probably be led to assume that this love is balanced by an equal (but unspoken) loathing of the parents. She reluctantly recalls sad tales of parents who both implicitly and explicitly have suggested it her job — and solely her job — to educate their kids. And if at first blush readers are wondering why that is such an outrageous suggestion, consider that the context for raising and educating any child has likely never been so far from obvious as it is in a society that so easily seems to find trouble defining that education.

As skeptical parents does it matter how we define education? Or is it merely stating the obvious to suggest we just get on with the teaching our kids? For we parents who seek a rational approach, perhaps in hopes of providing the most balanced and critical education for our kids, one that we can understand and have hope of contributing to as participant and co-educators, these differences of opinions — differences of definition of what defines a good education — are troubling. If we can’t agree on definition, then what hope do we have of moving onto the debate around context and purpose?

Still confused?

If it helps, think of the aforementioned difference in opinion between (one) teacher and (one) parent as something of a simple disagreement on definition; And the conflict builds as the teacher wanting to do the best for both the student and the theory is told by this particular parent, flat-out suggesting of his son: “I’ve given up. You teach him something.” The teacher views the definition of education in one light, the parent in another. The student is caught in between. And what I think shines most plainly from such a mess is that by arguing at the level of definition both teacher and parent cannot easily find a practical context for the student to actually learn — at least not optimally.

And for the newbie skeptical parent looking to enter the fray, what is this so-called context? And why does it even matter? For now we’ll consider that context the goal of this article and that it is temporarily lost in semantics.

My friend — unnamed here because teachers should not be telling tales out of school — could likely be labeled as a skeptic, though she has not yet adopted the title herself. I am certain her innately rational view of the world influences her perception of the frustrating misunderstanding by parents of an otherwise carefully planned and idealized teacher-student role in the equation of a larger philosophy of education. And as she tells me stories such as this, implied in these stories is that she has set her mind on a set purpose and practical definition of formal education and her job in relation to that. Fair enough, but her definition may easily be just one in a constellation of others. So, to give readers an idea of the depth of this confusion, six broad definitions follow:

Definition 1: Formal Education as a Right…

It could be argued that the perception of education as a unilateral human right is not a bad thing. As skeptics we tend to champion the idea of higher learning, critical thought, and balanced rational development of the mind through both formal and informal education. I was reminded recently of the emotional tug that the abstract concept of education is capable of exerting on the heart when a television commercial pleaded for donations to help send young girls in some faraway country to school. I was bolstered in my belief of the importance of education as students gathered at the local legislature to rally against budget cuts to education. And I felt the inevitable warmth of parenthood when I recently realized that the Girl will — in a few short years — be heading to school herself, and not by a question of ‘if’ but merely a question of ‘when’ and ‘where.’ We spend so many years of our life despising school (perhaps as a result of some pop cultural zeitgeist derived from teen movies) that when it’s over we’re just so glad to be done that it takes us a few years to look back and think with gratitude upon the rare experience — the rare right — that we’ve been granted by virtue of when and where we happened to be alive.

Definition 2: Formal Education as a Commodity…

Alternatively, the perception of education as a product to be bought and sold is more rampant than many have stopped to consider. At the highest levels, education — at least in Canada — tends to be portrayed as a cost and not an investment. Teachers are paid fair salaries, but operate as invisible service providers save for the occasional labour strike. Learning is sliced into grades, grades sliced into curriculum and subjects, and subjects are sliced into lessons with both absolute objectives and per-student costs. Education is something that happens in schools, boxed, neat, tidy, and out-of-sight from we grown-ups who’ve done our learning and don’t have time for more lest it be termed advanced training or professional development, and only then parceled into a budget under the heading of taxable benefit. An even rarer few of us enroll in ‘continuing education’ but more often than not as some kind of eclectic hobby that we attend to optionally and think of as a form of alternative entertainment. And if nothing else, we buy our learning in the form of educational language programs, do-it-yourself books, or so-called educational software from the store. The list could go on, but the conclusion is the same; we have made a business of trading knowledge as a marketable commodity.

Definition 3: Formal Education as a Propaganda…

As skeptics we’ve likely all felt the sting of prejudice based on our relative level of education. I recall my own disgust at how the word “elite” or the idea that someone with an advanced degree has been used politically both in Canada and elsewhere as a means to imply that there is a unbalanced class system at work in society, and that education distances those who have it from some abstract state of “being in touch” with those who have less. Our previous federal election was bent in one solid direction on the notion that one of the candidates was somehow flawed (and if not flawed, incapable of balanced leadership) because he was educated. And more so, I might personally suggest, it was not merely that he was educated, but educated in a system that was perceived somewhat apart from the agreed upon average education or obtainable institution to which most citizens can hope to belong. Thus, under the banner of education as propaganda I would also suggest falls a number of ideas about institutional and organizational learning, at the basic end learning such as those differences implied by so-called ivy-league educations to those from closed-door, employee-only corporate and business environments to something as seemingly innocent (and and far more entrenched) in Sunday Schools around the world. Here the content is not as important to this discussion on definition, as is the premise that each exists to educate (overtly or not) as a form of sharing an ideology. And thus, yet another facet of the formal education question emerges.

Definition 4: Formal Education as a Philosophy…

A fourth definition emerges from my own previous life as an educator; around the turn of the millennium I spent some time training for a bachelors degree in education, optimistic that it might one day lead to employment as a teacher. (I changed my mind, eventually.) In participating in those courses — ethics, psychology and theory classes — I was exposed to all manner of abstract education research theory, psychological modalities, and education philosophies. At a very simply level this manifests itself in the form of grade-levels and achievement-rankings. It is a formalized way of quantifying education, but gets even more complex when that quantification enters the realm of textbook-level theory. For example, I spent a good deal of time — and as I recall, ink as well — understanding the basis and bias of Piaget’s four stages of learning (sensorimotor period, preoperative period, concrete operational stage, and formal operational stage.) The core of this theory looks to break down learning into defined stages correlated with brain development and the effects of various kinds of educational inputs, a theory that I cannot hope to do justice in a quick summary. The point is not the theory (and definitely not the value of these theories) but rather that such work, easily categorized as just another — albeit highly formalized and evidence-based — definition of formal education, adds yet another level of complexity to the semantics of our discussion.

Definition 5: Formal Education as Entertainment…

A fifth definition is found in society’s current need to be entertained while learning. More-so even than that “educational programming” has literally become a genre on our televisions, I’m thinking of my own involvement in both curriculum development and working through schools to promote advanced education. This work has often left me to consider the common sentiment: “you gotta grab their attention to keep them interested.” Here I risk descending into the age-old rant of ‘back in my day’ and suggesting that modern education systems have — perhaps — been increasingly bombarded by a culture that supposes its better to entertained than bored. There is no value judgment here. We’re I to hunt down research on this, maybe it would result in a positive effect to the value of formal education. Or maybe not. Also, this may or may not be a professional perception. I think it might simply be a definition adopted by those who have fallen into that cultural zeitgeist mentioned in a previous definition, that school and education is something to be endured and to fix this we must make it fun. But then, recall this a discussion on definition and I would suggest that there is a genuine and heartfelt perception that education needs to compete on a level of defining itself as entertainment, that school should engage kids at a level beyond the level of knowledge for its own sake. And yes, another conflicting definition for our list.

Definition 6: Formal Education as an Institution…

A final definition falls out of not what it should be or the way that it is viewed, but rather distinctly around who should be doing it. Consider for a moment the ongoing debate on homeschooling; one side argues that proper societal development of social interaction, openness to diversity, communication skills, and willingness to collaborate come from the institutionalized nature of the classroom. The other side argues that schools fail to teach morality, passion, and practical interaction with the world, and what is taught is done so by an underpaid civil servant. But again, this is not a debate on the merit of either side (I’ll save that for another post.) Rather it is yet another example of the definition by which society chooses to label formal education in 2010. I could go on, but I think readers likely get the point….

My goal here has not been to suggest that any of these definitions have any more merit than any other, or that their internal questions should be pulled in one particular direction. Nor is it my goal to suggest that the debate is entirely devoid of discussion beyond definition. Instead, my goal is to suggest that as we think about our kid’s educations — as parents — we will likely face each of these (and many more) definitions. And hidden in these definitions is the prospect and threat of (our own personal) distraction from more interesting and important things to debate than semantics. Our acceptance of each helps (or hinders) our general involvement in the process, and likely this understanding has a great effect on the quality and quantity of education our kids will receive. This mish-mash of definitions is merely splitting metaphorical hairs, and being aware that the value for our kids comes not from the definitions themselves, but from the context we derive from moving beyond this semantic debate.

As I asked earlier, what then is this so-called context and why does it even matter? To suggest one single answer to this question, let’s go back to the simple statement by one parent to one teacher: “I’ve given up. You teach him something.” I would argue that this is not only a case of mistaken definition, but a case where by mistaking the definition the student is lost in a discussion lacking context. Both teacher and parent assume that the question of “what is learning?” is just defined as a ‘thing’ easily categorized and completed: a job to be done, a role to be played, time to be endured, or an institution in which to be enrolled. But the rational parent will struggle to poke their head above this categorization and forget about how education is defined. The skeptical parent is one that gets that there is more to learning for our kids than any one definition can possibility encompass. Instead, by understanding that only by moving beyond the idea of trying to define a role for each of the players in the process — the teacher does this, the parent does that, the state does yet another thing — that our kids also realize their learning actually has a deeper meaning.

While I gladly accept comments on the general blog areas of skepdad.ca, in keeping with the magazine-style of this bimonthly publication article, comment here are closed and feedback can be submitted in the form of letters to the editor using the contact form. The best letters and responses will be published in an upcoming issue.