Deschooling Society

The purpose of this essay is to provide a critique on Illich’s Deschooling Society. Throughout his book, Illich identifies many issues surrounding the education system. In this essay, I will be focusing on Illich’s concept of moving schools from closed to open societies and the idea of deinstitutionalising schools.
Illich believes that closed institutions consisted of being manipulative, controlling, depriving students of freedom and having power, traits which seem to mimic those of a prison. All of these institutions make up the society in which we live in, therefore, having some sort of control over every aspect of our lives. He also believes that students have been conditioned to confuse teaching with learning and once this becomes blurred “a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success” (Illich, 1971, pg. 3). Even in today’s society, schools control what students learn and have decided what is important and what is not. This dependence on schools is seen through many aspects of furtherance from education, but for me, my reliance on schools was the need to acquire NCEA in order to get into university. Without doing exactly what schools provide, there is a slim chance that a student will be able to further their education. Although students can choose which subjects they want to take, they have limited choice of what they will actually learn within the course, depriving them of their freedom. This form of institutionalisation makes students think that the more they do in school, the better the outcome will be.
Robinson (2010) backs up what Illich is suggesting by saying that “we still educate students by batches… we put them through the system by age group. Why is there this assumption that the most important thing kids have in common is how old they are?” Educational hierarchies have decided that this is the way in which we should teach our children, gaining total power and control over the way things are run. Deinstitutionalising students requires a deconditioning of the way they think, behave and how they self-reflect. Finger & Asún state that institutionalisation “undermines people - it diminishes their confidence in themselves and in their capacity to solve problems... It kills convivial relationships. Finally it colonizes life like a parasite or a cancer that kills creativity” (2001, pg. 10). We need to change educational paradigms so that students regain their identities and schools become globalised so that schools do not condition students to become products for other institutions. Illich is trying to change institutions by moving them towards open conviviality where students become individuals again. I believe this is definitely the way forward for education.
Illich states in chapter one of his book, Deschooling Society, that between 1965 and 1968, the US government spent over three billion dollars in schools nationwide in order to offset the disadvantages of around six million children. Although all of this money was spent, there were no significant improvements clearly seen in those children considered disadvantaged, identifying that money cannot be relied on as a solution to help those students in need. He also highlights the idea of ‘casual’ learning which occurs outside of school. Disadvantaged (poor) students are usually unable to access resources such as books, conversation and travel as easily as that of a rich student. Therefore, the poor student tends to fall behind whilst depending on school for learning. Leadbeater (2000) also agrees with this concept and states that “more learning should be done at home, in offices and kitchens, in the contexts where knowledge is deployed to solve problems and to add value to people's lives” (p. 112). I agree with this but raise the question of money as this kind of learning requires costs. Therefore, instead of the US pouring billions of dollars into schools, there needs to be a move to allowing that money to be allocated somehow into the home.
Illich’s suggestion of ‘learning webs’ is an idea which he thinks will help to move schools from being closed manipulative to open convivial institutions. These learning webs, which “provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives,…empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them…[and] furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known” (Nassif, 1975, p. 339) will enable people to self-learn, allowing students to take control of their learning. He also believed that we need to further research into “the possible use of technology to create institutions which serve personal, creative, and autonomous interaction and the emergence of values which cannot be substantially controlled by technocrats” (Illich, 1971, p. 3). The problem I face with this concept of learning webs is the idea that all students will need to be motivated in order to learn. For a lot of students, distractions are so easily come by which can easily occupy large amounts of time. These types of students need a space, like school, which will help them to learn by providing them with the time and focus needed to achieve.
Although I believe Illich’s ideas of deschooling society are relevant and have importance in order to change educational paradigms to help students, there are some people who disagreed with some aspects of his work. Zaldívar (2011) sates that a lot of critics viewed “the alternatives offered by Illich [as being] utopian and had no practical direction or application” (p. 620). Without regulations, how would society run? Peters (2012) states that “of course, all institutions require some regulation. But the operation of institutions which exist to be used rather than to produce something requires rules of an entirely different nature from those required by treatment-institutions, which are manipulative.” Illich identifies that there is a need for structure with his concept of learning webs but claims it would require a different set of rules. However, this could be seen as utopian as it is not possible in order to meet the needs of today’s society and that of the future. Having an education which is solely based on the use of technology may “imply a complex bureaucratic ‘system’, with the risk of a stagnation process similar to that attributed to traditional institutions” (Nassif, 1975). Therefore, I believe combining the idea of learning webs with the structure of school will allow students the freedom of education without the control, power and manipulation of closed societies. By enabling all students the access to educational resources, this will mean all students can equally gain an education. Combining this with appropriate structure ensures students have access to the materials needed whilst being in an environment in which they are motivated to learn.
In conclusion, Illich raises the issue of schools needing to move from being closed manipulative institutions into open convivial institutions which involves the process of deinstitutionalisation. He identifies throughout his book, Deschooling Society, the inequality amongst students and how schools have become a place of control and power which doesn’t allow freedom. His solution of ‘learning webs’ will enable student’s access to education wherever and whenever they want. I believe Illich has come up with a brilliant idea which allows students to regain their freedom but I struggle with the concept of not having enough structure to be successful. We are living in a world with constant distractions, but schools provide structure which enables students a place where they are motivated to learn. Therefore, I think by combining Illich’s idea of ‘learning webs’ with the structure of school, students are able to have access to resources which are needed to further their education with the appropriate structure needed for motivation. This will then result in schools acting as a place which helps a student learn rather than students conforming to what schools want them to learn. This is reflected through Illich’s view that “learning is the human activity that least needs manipulation by others; that most learning is the result not of instruction but of participation by learners in meaningful settings” (Gajardo, 1993, p. 714).

Word count: 1355
Referencing
Finger, M. & Asún, J., M. (2001). Adult Education at the Crossroads. Learning our way out, London: Zed Books.
Gajardo, M. (1993). Ivan Illich. Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, 23(3/4), 711-20. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/illiche.PDF
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.
Leadbeater, C. (2000). Living on thin air. The new economy, London: Penguin.
Peters, M. (2012). Lecture four: PCSS205-12B [PowerPoint slides]. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Nassif, R. (1975). The theory of 'de-schooling' between paradox and utopianism. Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education,5(3), 329-340. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000155/015553eo.pdf
Robinson, K. (2010). RSA animate: changing education paradigms. Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org/events/video/animate/rsa-animate-changing-paradigms
Wyllie, J. (n.d.). Ivan Illich - a review of Deschooling Society. Retrieved from http://www.justinwyllie.net/essays/deschooling_society.pdf
Zaldívar, J., I. (2011). Revisiting the critiques of Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 1(1), 618-626. Retrieved from http://infonomicssociety.org/IJCDSE/Revisiting%20the%20critiques%20of%20Ivan%20Illichs%20Deschooling%20Society.pdf