Why Have School?

They are leaving unable to write because there is not enough support to help them enough to learn these basics. And other social factors as well, far beyond the ability of the schools alone to address. Why blame the messenger?

Basics like reading and math are great. So is being able to survive in our current, highly technologized society. So is developing a capacity to deal with the truckload of partisan talk - called advertising - that children are increasingly bombarded with. Shall we ignore all that?

"Forcing" upon students the ability to think is a very revealing turn of phrase. Do you have the same venom towards teaching students to think for themselves? To detect partisan messages and distinguish them from statements of fact?

Helping to develop citizens, not zombified consumers, who think for themselves is one of the most noble aims of any educational system. This goes beyond political sectarian views, etc. It is only the most reactionary, anti-intellectual, neocons, Conservative politicians, religious fundamentalists, and other misanthropes who are hostile to to this noble aim.

Where the frack are you coming from? Good grief.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And regarding an overhaul of the whole system, I think it is more important that students leave with the ability to read and do math (something school SHOULD be able to accomplish but is not) than trying to force upon them the ability to think.

I thought I understood this idea pretty well. Apparently not. Perhaps you could explain how I should have "properly" understood your meaning.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

And regarding an overhaul of the whole system, I think it is more important that students leave with the ability to read and do math (something school SHOULD be able to accomplish but is not) than trying to force upon them the ability to think. That second goal is something a lot of students will get, and which some teachers do inspire. And personally, I would like for schools to foster free thought as much as possible. But you're never going to be able to enshrine it as part of the curriculum, and it doesn't do much good when the whole system is falling apart so badly that kids are leaving school unable to write.

Don't know about other provinces but fostering the 'ability to think' is actually enshrined in the curriculum.  Critical thinking, applied thinking etc are integrated within the language and literacy curriculum in Ontario.     Whether it's taught this way by every teacher or taught well by every teacher may be a question but it is there and is expected. 

N. Beltov:   A fairly comprehensive set of quidelines and expected outcomes around "Media literacy' is also part of the language curriculum from K-8 as well.  They include working with different media (technical aspects) as well as analysis of media, messaging, advertising how it works etc etc.   Again it might be not covered that much or not very well by different teachers but it is there. 

ElizaQ

Yes, I hear you. And I presumed we were talking more about political and social awareness rather than basic analysis, though of course one follows on the other.

As you say, the degree to which it is really taught comes down to the teacher. I was lucky enough to have one or two good ones.

And really it only takes one to make the difference.

Yeah, probably you're right N. Beltov. Thank you for setting me straight. And I should say you have quite the teaching style yourself.

Sounds to me like you should start your own school, or at least get on the board where you can show us how we should be doing it right.

@ N. Beltov

Thank you. Interesting links.

I think there are a couple of important distinctions between formal schooling and critical thinking (and political awareness in particular). First, grade school may be a good place to learn critical thinking, but it is hardly the only place and definitely not the best place. I would venture to say that you get a far better lesson in critical thinking by experiencing or seeing injustice than you ever do in a classroom. Besides, you don't need to be literate or educated to have a sophisticated understanding of injustice and oppression.

Secondly, the politics that shape our schools are the same politics that shape our government and the rest of our society. You have political goals? You can bet that there are others there with their own agenda. The only difference is that you will notice (if you have ever been to many school board meetings) that the bad ones throw their weight around even more, I suspect because they realize they are big fish in a very small pond.

Basically, I am not expecting an overthrow of our educational system, and frankly, I am pleasantly surprised that there has been as much positive change as there has been. Even so, I think the real work of teaching students to think for themselves and see things from different perspectives will always be done by the minority of teachers who do find a way to do that work over top of the regular curriculum.

Another important point to remember is that anyone who thinks that education begins and ends at the school doors is at a distinct disadvantage. I don't expect more than the basics from school because in my mind it is the foundation (or perhaps the mortar) - not the whole structure.

To see school as the place where all political awareness is learned is no different than seeing it as a factory that churns out workers. It's just differently-shaped widgets.

I did notice in Freire's wiki listing that his most subversive act - since it is the crime for which he was arrested, accused of treason, and deported - was to teach people the "orthodox" skill of reading and writing. Those generals may not have understood class analysis, but they certainly recognized a more fundamental threat when they saw it.

Way to cherry pick a sentence out of context.  So you disagree also that Canada teaches it's student's lies? 

Sven wrote:

Perhaps the criticism many are expressing here of the current political indoctrination of students is not so much a criticism of indoctrination, per se, but that students aren't getting the right kind of indoctrination.

Learning to think for yourself, being empowered citizens rather than passive consumers have to do with more than "indoctrination". They have to do with what sort of society, what sort of "democracy" we want, whether we play an active role in social life or whether "our betters" decide these things for us. it's about way more than the content of learning; it also has to do with putting a beat down on banking concepts of education. See, for example, Freire. 

ElizaQ wrote:

Don't know about other provinces but fostering the 'ability to think' is actually enshrined in the curriculum.  Critical thinking, applied thinking etc are integrated within the language and literacy curriculum in Ontario.     Whether it's taught this way by every teacher or taught well by every teacher may be a question but it is there and is expected. 

N. Beltov:   A fairly comprehensive set of quidelines and expected outcomes around "Media literacy' is also part of the language curriculum from K-8 as well.  They include working with different media (technical aspects) as well as analysis of media, messaging, advertising how it works etc etc.   Again it might be not covered that much or not very well by different teachers but it is there. 

- given the extremely misplaced faith most people seem to have in the mainstream media - including most 'progresesive' types in the CBC, one would have to wonder somewhat about how well things like 'critical thinking' or 'media literacy' are actually taught. I suspect there is something of an indoctrination going on here - "Our media are just about the best in the world - but boy, we sure need to think critically about media in countries like Iran or China or other places we don't like..." and etc.

There was an incident in PEI in the 80s or thereabouts when a language arts teacher tried to show his students a film about fundamentalist religion in the US (he had already shown one from 'their' side explaining what wonderful well-meaning people they all were - the second questioned this view) - the principal (a fundie himself) said no way, and eventually the teacher got fired. At one point the principal said something like "These kids are in high school and they'll think what they are told - they can think for themselves when they get to university.'

But of course, if you are well-conditioned to 'think' as you are told by the time you get to university, the chances of your breaking out of that pattern are pretty small - and it showed at UPEI, where I went, with the desire of the students to memorize and regurgitate, and the uncertainty and even fear most showed when a certain environmental prof expected a bit of thinking.

An English teacher there, when I wrote a short essay explaining why I thought I should not have to take a course in remedial grammar when my English was fine and there were other courses I'd rather be using the time for, gave me a D and told me my job was to do what I was told, not question orders.

The kind of 'critical thinking' fostered in at least one Cdn university - and I expect, from the lack of awareness and apathy evident across our great nation, in many others.

for RP and others who may be interested in reading more about Freire ...

Biographical Information and general comments.

Paulo Freire (1921-1997) was a Brazilian educator and founder of critical pedagogy. Freire could be described as being both a Christian and a socialist and saw no contradiction between these views.

Godonoo: Paulo Freire's philosophical stance is made up of a configuration of existential thought (i.e. humans in the process of building), phenomenological thought (humans building their consciousness as intentionality), Marxist thought (humans living in the drama of the economic conditioning of the infrastructure and the ideological conditioning of the superstructure) and Hegelian philosophy (i.e. every human, as self-consciousness, is part of the common experience, until s/he raises him/herself towards Science, through dialectics, so that what is "in itself" comes to be "in itself and for itself").

Godonoo: Freire's thinking flows from his life experiences and it is a synthesis of many strains of thought which do indeed lead him to the conclusion that education must lead to political liberation.

"In terms of actual pedagogy, Freire is best-known for his attack on what he called the "banking" concept of education, in which the student was viewed as an empty account to be filled by the teacher. He notes that, "it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men and women to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power" (Freire, 1970, p. 77) " (Wikipedia entry)

Secondly, Freire wrote about the necessity of a deep reciprocity characterizing the teacher-student relationship. ""Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously students and teachers" (Freire, 1970, p. 72). Freire wants us to think in terms of teacher-student and student-teacher - that is, a teacher who learns and a learner who teaches - as the basic roles of classroom participation. " (Wikipedia entry) The educator must be humble enough to be inclined to relearn that which they think they already know through interaction with the learner.

Godonoo: Paulo remains a father of philosophy, whose reflections assist scholars in explaining the process of humanization which educators confront on a daily basis. Paulo Freire did this by encouraging scholars to reflect on our ontological vocation as subjects in the process of humanization. Freire reminds us of the presence of ideology in all thought and thus, the need to expose these ideologies in out, educational enterprises.

Some concepts from Freire:

Godonoo: Above all, the emphasis that Freire places on dialogue as an essential tool in his methodology and as a criterion for assessing the oppression or openness within a given political structure is evidence of the extent to which Freire esteemed inter-subjectivity.

Godonoo: The term conscientization and the attention that Freire pays to human states of consciousness have often exposed him to the charge of idealist, a dreamer who seeks to change social reality by a simple change of human consciousness. It is fair to say that reflection upon one's consciousness and group consciousness is an essential feature in Freire's thought and methodology.

Godonoo: It Is significant to stress that Freire's constant probing of human consciousness and appearances led to the discovery all over the globe of the social conditioning of consciousness and the power of thinking subjects to act on their own behalf.

From Godonoo, passim. Reflection on his experiences and education , on every job he undertook, was always linked to action and characterized Freire's entire adult life. We could say that the emphasis on reflection in the learning to become teachers is a Freirean idea. In this case the action is to become good teachers. Freire was already a good teacher. Etc.

"... the only way to ensure that you are truly free to think for yourself is to practice intellectual self-defence. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire called this conscientização, which he defined as "learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality." "The Importance of Intellectual Self-Defence", Clay McLeod, p. 15, Social Justice Newsletter, BCTF, Winter 2009.

There are many educational institutions around the world named after Freire: at UCLA, in South Africa, Spain, Malta, Finland and, of course, in Brasil. He has been compared to the Argentinian revolutionary and doctor Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Poems were written in Freire's honour. Prosper Godonoo in a Tribute to Freire's influence on African scholars quotes the following:

Ode to Paulo Freire "This Path Less Trod"

Let it be known
That here walked a man.
Steady in gait
The world his zone.

Clear of purpose,
He trod through the fire
Gathering wisdom,
Disdaining the mire.

Let it be known
That here passed a man
Riding the storm,
Bolts in his hands;

Slaying the myths,
Laying low the veil,
Exhorting the truth,
Unhinging the nail.

Let it be known
That here came a man With
shield and sword,
Cutting through stone.

Our knight came with light,
Showing ways less hard, He
stayed the course through On
this path less trod.

General Comments:

1. We live in a society in which it is controversial to be an advocate for social justice. When we think about it, this is actually quite strange. "It may seem ironic that one has to advocate for social justice, but one cannot assume that an idea or cause will be embraced because it is just, fair, or compassionate. We as a society often put self-interest and personal gain ahead of compassion and the communal good." (Teaching for Social Justice, p. 5)
2. Freire addressed this problem head on. It was his belief that education is not neutral. "It either served to help children conform to society's norms and culture or it could "become the 'practice of freedom', the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in and transform their world." (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) " quoted in handout "Using the BCTF social justice lens to focus our work" .
3. It ought to be said, and said very clearly, that it is probably easy for a teacher to imagine that they are applying Freire's ideas when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Related to this is the mistaken idea that Freire's ideas can be reduced to methodologies that can be applied in some routine or automatic way in the classroom.

Freire's influence on current curriculum:

student involvement in the creation of their own curriculum. Freire's teachers enter into a dialogue with their students, find out what is important to them, and facilitate discussion and learning. " Friere's teachers are mirrors who reflect the students' reality rather than pedagogues who impose their own, often meaningless or irrelevant, reality on the students." Sluyter, p. 20
A Freirian-inspired video curriculum for at-risk high-school students. Describes a three-year pilot project, in a high school on a Navajo reservation, using a video curriculum based on the philosophy of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Discusses the philosophy, development, and implementation of this curriculum. See references Squires & Inlander.

Quotations:

"Silence is the prime indicator of oppression." quoted in Teaching for Social Justice, p. 5

"Each day be open to the world, be ready to think; each day be ready not to accept what is said just because it is said, be predisposed to reread what is read; each day investigate, question, and doubt"
(Politics, p. 181).

For Freire, it was essential "to read the world before reading the word". "The question for me was how to put these two kinds of 'readings' together... Why am I hungry today? Because I don't have food. Why don't I have food? Because I don't have a job. Why can't I find a job?... Each question proposes another, and in providing different kinds of answers (the learner) begins to unveil the raison d'etre for certain kinds of phenomena." (Otchet)

"There is no text without context," he insisted repeatedly. Using "generator words" which express the learners' "actual language, their anxieties, fears, demands and dreams", Freire rooted reading in daily life, critically discussing the meaning of a word before analyzing it as a "graphic symbol". (Otchet)

Sven wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

They have to do with what sort of society, what sort of "democracy" we want, whether we play an active role in social life or whether "our betters" decide these things for us.

And those are all political questions (i.e., what political doctrine does one want taught in schools?).

The truth is not a political doctrine.  What's wrong with asking for that and then letting the cute young uns' make up their own mind.

siamdave wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

Don't know about other provinces but fostering the 'ability to think' is actually enshrined in the curriculum.  Critical thinking, applied thinking etc are integrated within the language and literacy curriculum in Ontario.     Whether it's taught this way by every teacher or taught well by every teacher may be a question but it is there and is expected. 

N. Beltov:   A fairly comprehensive set of quidelines and expected outcomes around "Media literacy' is also part of the language curriculum from K-8 as well.  They include working with different media (technical aspects) as well as analysis of media, messaging, advertising how it works etc etc.   Again it might be not covered that much or not very well by different teachers but it is there. 

- given the extremely misplaced faith most people seem to have in the mainstream media - including most 'progresesive' types in the CBC, one would have to wonder somewhat about how well things like 'critical thinking' or 'media literacy' are actually taught. I suspect there is something of an indoctrination going on here - "Our media are just about the best in the world - but boy, we sure need to think critically about media in countries like Iran or China or other places we don't like..." and etc.

 I have limited experience to what is actually taught vs what is expected to be taught though during the next few years I'll be getting a better idea (at least one school) due to a project I've started to work on, where part of it will be occuring in the classroom with a variety of teachers and grades.  One of the main things I have to do is work with the current curriculum.  It's been quite interesting so far and have been quite surprised at some of things that are in there and how it's set up.  It's quite different then when I was in elementary school. 

 While I don't doubt that some teachers might just be teaching that "our media is the best in the world' if they did just that they wouldn't come close to meeting the expectations and outcomes that are outlined.   The 'media literacy' component of the language curriculum covers way more then just msm news media.  It looks at all types of media and part of it is working with media as well as creating and working in various forms of media including the internet.  For instance I chatted with a couple kids about how they use the net (grade 4 and 5s) and they informed me that the net is good to get info from but you have to be careful and know what you're reading because of bias and some sites are just trying to sell you things and those aren't always that great for info cause you know when people are selling stuff they try to make it sound really, really great and sometimes just make stuff up."  I asked where they learned this and they looked at me funny and said in school of course "duh".    That is a form of media literacy. 

Another component is technical media skills.  In one of the classes I worked with when something is happening that they want to record two students are tech volunteers for the day.  Their job is to take pictures and then upload them onto the computer and organize them.    The teacher also works with her students to create information posters for some of the events that happen in the school.  It was pretty neat to watch that process occur.  Not only did they learn about how to convey information and what information was important they also learned about things that were happening in the community.  

I know another class spent time during the recent municipal elections looking at the information that the different candidates put out.  Teaching kids to learn and think about things like rhetoric, substance vs fluff and how political information is conveyed through print and visual mediums as well a generally just becoming aware of the political process and what issues are being talked about in the political arena in their community. 

@ N. Beltov #65

I'm not disagreeing with that; I know that real education is a lot more than basic skills

My only point is that if you had to break down the functions of a formal school system I would say those basic skills are probably the most important part - certainly the foundation of everything else - and when we have kids leaving school not being able to read there is a much more basic problem than encouraging them to think and interpret. That, I think comes a bit more naturally for those who are so inclined.

By contrast, seeing discrimination and injustice will teach you a lot of things; it will not teach you long division for when your calculator batteries run out.

And when it comes to our social and political systems, school is probably one of the ones where we can have the most direct impact if we choose. Parents can be in the classroom if they choose, talk to teachers directly, get on the parent council, the school board, take their children to another school, home school, or simply keep engaged with what their children are learning and expose them to what is missing or needs to be corrected.

I know it is not quite as easy in isolated areas where people can't simply take their kids somewhere else, but the fact is if you aren't teaching your kids then it is not the school which is failing and indoctrinating.

Also, I think it is good to expose kids to progressive political ideas, but it is more important that they also learn to think and choose that for themselves. I would be kind of disappointed if my kids grew up to be young conservatives, but if that is what they choose it it still better than having them wind up a carbon copy of me and not understanding why.

ElizaQ wrote:

.......

 While I don't doubt that some teachers might just be teaching that "our media is the best in the world' if they did just that they wouldn't come close to meeting the expectations and outcomes that are outlined.   The 'media literacy' component of the language curriculum covers way more then just msm news media.  It looks at all types of media and part of it is working with media as well as creating and working in various forms of media including the internet.  For instance I chatted with a couple kids about how they use the net (grade 4 and 5s) and they informed me that the net is good to get info from but you have to be careful and know what you're reading because of bias and some sites are just trying to sell you things and those aren't always that great for info cause you know when people are selling stuff they try to make it sound really, really great and sometimes just make stuff up."  I asked where they learned this and they looked at me funny and said in school of course "duh".    That is a form of media literacy.

.........

It's hard to have much to say against teachers in public school doing the things you describe - but the kids they turn out are the ones who later face more serious indoctrination in high school and through the mainstream media. I suspect most teachers are well-meaning, and think they are doing a very good job, but they're a central part of the indoctrination stream too, unfortunately, even if unwittingly - they are a central part of instilling the 'assumed' things that later are beyond questioning - Canada is a great democracy. Economics is complicated and best left to experts - but our experts are really, really smart people doing the very best job for Canada and we really don't need to worry about them. Our government is the best in the world. The media are to be trusted - they are a central part of our great democracy, and really look out for 'our' interests. Things like this that simply never get questioned by most people in later life, that they learn to not question from their very first days in front of the television, and then through public school, and even in university. For instance the example you give, about kids being taught to question what they read on the internet - that is fine of course, and useful - but why aren't they told at the same time that the Canadian media is owned by very wealthy people, and the interests of very wealthy people are somewhat different than the interests of ordinary people, and sometimes you need to look in other places besides the mainstream media for other points of view that might be important? Perhaps because the same people that spread spin and gatekeep through the MSM are the same people who control political parties, and thus control the policies of what gets taught - and not taught - in the education system. Most of it is fine - but there are a few very glaring, and very important, things not taught that should be.
I have a lot more here, if you're interested in getting out of the rabbit hole - They're Building a Box - and You're In It  http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.htm . It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if you approached any of the 'authorities' you answer to and suggested anything along these lines.

Fixed link:

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html

Here's another take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

As I said, I think we have plenty of ideas and alternatives to choose from.

Though again, I think the important thing is not so much overhauling the whole system to make it serve our purposes (which isn't likely to happen anytime soon, and certainly not quickly) but looking after those people in the system who do inspire kids to think. And of course, doing our own homework.

Fortunately you don't have to change the whole system. It only takes one.

BTW I don't think the school should be overhauled for political reasons to answer political questions I think it should be overhauled to allow for the system to provide an environment of adaptability to every student, to critically think about itself and be open to new ideas so it can use the critical thinking.

@ Sven

Good point, and I agree. Though I would add that in the context of free thought, truth is also a subjective and personal question.

@ Revolution Please

Actually I wasn't speaking to your dispute so much as the general issue. Excuse me if it sounded like I was.

Although there are some clear and factual truths it is up to each person to determine his or her own values. There is no free thinking without that.

School District officials are trying to come up with new strategies to deal with bullying of Grade 9 students at Saint John-area high schools.

District 8 schools are adding new measures this year to better protect Grade 9 students from incidents of so-called "rookie-ing" or hazing.

The initiations can range from marking the letter "R" for rookie on someone's arm or face to committing physical assault.

Keillor Irving, a Grade 12 student, said the controversial tradition is intimidating for students new to high school.

"I've seen kids come in completely covered from face to neck, in permanent marker, and that's sad," Irving said.

Irving said the situation seems to have improved at Saint John High this year.

He credits that to the new staggered start to classes with Grade 9 students getting a full day by themselves to adjust to their new environment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/09/16/nb-high-sch...

Children who immigrate to Canada after the age of nine are far more likely to drop out of school and never go back, a new study suggests.

Researchers looked at the census data of more than 100,000 new Canadians who immigrated before the age of 18.

The study showed a link between educational achievement and the age at which a child learned English or French.

Miles Corak, a University of Ottawa labour economist, led the study. He says children who came to Canada before the age of nine performed well in school - in fact they often did better than their domestically born peers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/27/pol-young-immigrant-kid...

You're right, Mike.  Public schools are a terrible idea.  Let's return to the days where literacy is reserved for those who can pay for it.  Let's make sure that the next generation of kids are not only not indoctrinated, but completely ignorant as well.  That'll fix it.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-QIY7ys-k]Don't teach kids to read, teach them to question what they read[/url]

I love George.  He does irreverence so well.