Can a democracy afford to
socialize major parts of its population to accept less education and
intellectual development than the society is capable of offering or
should Dewey’s all around growth for every member of society be the
fundamental aim for all citizens? Can the limited intellectual demands
of low-skill occupations define our educational aims for the millions of
people who will one day fill those occupations? Or should they be
educated to the limits of their capacity, partly because each parent
should (and usually does) want the greatest possible intellectual,
emotional, and moral development of his or her children? And if human
development for its own sake is our educational ideal, what kind of
school experiences will help bring about such development?
I feel that everyone should be able to accomplish what they see fit in
their own life. It is not a 'socialization' of certain members of the
population, but rather a choice made by individuals. As educators we
need to continue encouraging all children to give 110% and become
life-long learners. Dewey's all around growth is an excellent argument
for all citizens. The only problem I have is that not everyone is
suited for the same things. This decision cannot be made by the
government (especially at a young age) as it is in other countries. It
must be left to the individual to 'discover' for themselves. The
concrete and abstract thinking that such decisions take does not develop
until a later age. If we provide students with a top notch education
and the opportunity to discover their potential, what is wrong
with that? Limited intellectual demand occupations don't and shouldn't
shape our educational strategies. The reality is, however, that some
members of society are suited for these jobs.
Yes we should educate children to their limits and expect nothing but
greatness from them. Parents of course play a major role in the
intellectual, emotional, and moral development of their children. More
so in my opinion than the school house. This is no excuse however and
we should hold children (regardless of parental support) to these high
standards. The issue I have is that not all will rise to the occasion.
Many do not want to go on to college. Many who do well in school want
to get out and begin working right away. Why should we tell them this
is not OK? I am sure I will receive flak for that statement, but as
educators we owe it to children to give them the best learning and show
them the way for their own development. You can lead a horse to water,
but you cannot make it drink.
School experiences that help enrich human development are ones with real
world applications. In Texas we are so focused on tests that students
don't get the same chances to explore what they really want from life,
even as we did not so long ago. The day of the guidance counselor
providing career advice is over. The counselor of today is planning
training for teachers on what to do/not do while giving the test! The
only place it seems many get guidance for career planning is an English
course that makes students write a research paper on a career of their
choice. What does this tell kids? Do they think we really care if they
become life-long learners (whether that be in the auto mechanics field
or dentistry who cares?)? Sometimes I feel that maybe they don't
believe we care as much as we do. Somehow we need to make school a fun
place to learn. Students should know that we expect nothing but their
best, and they will be willing to give it.
No comments:
Post a Comment