Reforming our schools
Reforming Our Schools
What is the purpose of our schools in America? The goal of our schools is to provide every student with the same foundation of knowledge, whether or not it is necessarily relevant to the student’s interests. Because of this goal, the same method and style of teaching is often used for every student, regardless of how that student learns best. As of now, It is obvious that the “the aim of schooling is to get all students to the same place at about the same time” (Eisner 1). If an outsider were looking in on our schools they would think that we discouraged uniqueness. Though this set-up might work for some students, it assuredly does not work for all students. Because every student is treated in the same way there is no recognition or understanding, on the part of the school, that each student is a special and distinct person. The current educational purpose and structure supports alienation and stifles human connection between teacher and student, although this could be changed through a culture of care and personalization in teaching.
If we were to rethink the purpose of our schools we would see drastic improvements in the well-roundedness of students as future citizens. As stated above, the current goal is to provide every student with the same base of knowledge. But if our goal is to treat every student the same this allows for no flexibility and for no real relationship to form between the student, the family and the teacher. This lack of real relationship informs an atmosphere that is without a culture of care and essentially communicates that the unique individual is unimportant. However, Laureate Nel Noddings, states that if we were to make the goal of our educational system, to ensure “the healthy emotional, social and moral development of every student” along with a good academic foundation, we would see a change in the type of citizen that is produced as well as how our schools relate to their students (Noddings 23). Many people believe it is not the school’s place to be a center of care because it is not considered to be academic material. However, if we were to repurpose our schools with a culture of care in mind we would see the ability of our students to use their knowledge, to care for others, to imagine how others feel, and to be prepared and able to speak up and be heard. These skills are no less critical, no less rigorous and should not be devalued, as they currently are in an academic setting. The goal of schools, which is to cultivate standardized academic proficiency, currently leaves out the cultivation of the student’s character but this doesn’t form a well-rounded citizen and “A democratic society has a right to insist that the central function of schooling is to cultivate the mental and moral habits that a modern democracy requires. These include openness to other viewpoints, the capacity to sustain uncertainty, the ability to act on partial knowledge, and the inclination to step into the shoes of others” (Meier 373).
After a shift in the goal of schools has occurred (to create more aware and educated citizens), it will inform how students and teachers relate, which will inform how the structure and curriculum should be set-up. With the reformed goal of creating well-rounded and educated citizens, teachers and students are able to better understand one another and “the main reason to create such partnerships is … when parents, teachers, students and others view one another as partners in education, a caring community forms around students and begins its work” (Epstein 701). Currently, our school system is not built in a way that fosters understanding between the school and the student and “Teachers will not have a major impact on the way students use their minds until teachers come to know how their students’ minds are working” (Meier 372). If a culture of care is created there will be an inevitable move towards the aforementioned partnership as well as a move towards personalization. Not every student has the same interests or the same preferred way of learning. If there is specialization in the way students are taught, with the goal of creating well-rounded citizens, “it promotes self-actualization by enabling students to play to their own strengths” and then really allows them to give to society accurately and uniquely those gifts that others cannot duplicate (Eisner 2).
In summary, there is a lot of work to be done within American school systems. We have to change the way we view our schools and their purpose. We should not have school’s primary purpose be to churn out kids who can regurgitate the same facts in the same order but rather tailor the learning experience according to the student so that students can think critically about anything that is presented to them. If we encourage this personalization of structure and curriculum it could leave a lasting impact on the student’s character and mode of thinking. This impact is what makes the crucial difference in what our society will look like. Afterall, these students are our future. The current system has them trained to think in the same ways, which doesn’t allow for diversity in methods of problem solving and creativity. If our future citizens are unable to think critically, be tolerant and understanding of other perspectives, and think on their feet, then we are headed for a very grim course of events. However, if we institute changes that support educational partnership and personalization of the material, our community would benefit exponentially.
Works cited
Eisner, Elliot W. "Questionable Assumptions About Schooling." Print.
Epstein, Joyce L. “School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share.” The Phi Delta Kappan 76.9 (1995): 701-712. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Meier, Deborah. “How Our Schools Could Be.” The Phi Delta Kappan 76.5 (1995):
369-373. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Noddings, Nel. “What Can Teachers Learn From Research.” Kappa Delta Pi Record 46.1 (2009): 23-25. Print.
What is the purpose of our schools in America? The goal of our schools is to provide every student with the same foundation of knowledge, whether or not it is necessarily relevant to the student’s interests. Because of this goal, the same method and style of teaching is often used for every student, regardless of how that student learns best. As of now, It is obvious that the “the aim of schooling is to get all students to the same place at about the same time” (Eisner 1). If an outsider were looking in on our schools they would think that we discouraged uniqueness. Though this set-up might work for some students, it assuredly does not work for all students. Because every student is treated in the same way there is no recognition or understanding, on the part of the school, that each student is a special and distinct person. The current educational purpose and structure supports alienation and stifles human connection between teacher and student, although this could be changed through a culture of care and personalization in teaching.
If we were to rethink the purpose of our schools we would see drastic improvements in the well-roundedness of students as future citizens. As stated above, the current goal is to provide every student with the same base of knowledge. But if our goal is to treat every student the same this allows for no flexibility and for no real relationship to form between the student, the family and the teacher. This lack of real relationship informs an atmosphere that is without a culture of care and essentially communicates that the unique individual is unimportant. However, Laureate Nel Noddings, states that if we were to make the goal of our educational system, to ensure “the healthy emotional, social and moral development of every student” along with a good academic foundation, we would see a change in the type of citizen that is produced as well as how our schools relate to their students (Noddings 23). Many people believe it is not the school’s place to be a center of care because it is not considered to be academic material. However, if we were to repurpose our schools with a culture of care in mind we would see the ability of our students to use their knowledge, to care for others, to imagine how others feel, and to be prepared and able to speak up and be heard. These skills are no less critical, no less rigorous and should not be devalued, as they currently are in an academic setting. The goal of schools, which is to cultivate standardized academic proficiency, currently leaves out the cultivation of the student’s character but this doesn’t form a well-rounded citizen and “A democratic society has a right to insist that the central function of schooling is to cultivate the mental and moral habits that a modern democracy requires. These include openness to other viewpoints, the capacity to sustain uncertainty, the ability to act on partial knowledge, and the inclination to step into the shoes of others” (Meier 373).
After a shift in the goal of schools has occurred (to create more aware and educated citizens), it will inform how students and teachers relate, which will inform how the structure and curriculum should be set-up. With the reformed goal of creating well-rounded and educated citizens, teachers and students are able to better understand one another and “the main reason to create such partnerships is … when parents, teachers, students and others view one another as partners in education, a caring community forms around students and begins its work” (Epstein 701). Currently, our school system is not built in a way that fosters understanding between the school and the student and “Teachers will not have a major impact on the way students use their minds until teachers come to know how their students’ minds are working” (Meier 372). If a culture of care is created there will be an inevitable move towards the aforementioned partnership as well as a move towards personalization. Not every student has the same interests or the same preferred way of learning. If there is specialization in the way students are taught, with the goal of creating well-rounded citizens, “it promotes self-actualization by enabling students to play to their own strengths” and then really allows them to give to society accurately and uniquely those gifts that others cannot duplicate (Eisner 2).
In summary, there is a lot of work to be done within American school systems. We have to change the way we view our schools and their purpose. We should not have school’s primary purpose be to churn out kids who can regurgitate the same facts in the same order but rather tailor the learning experience according to the student so that students can think critically about anything that is presented to them. If we encourage this personalization of structure and curriculum it could leave a lasting impact on the student’s character and mode of thinking. This impact is what makes the crucial difference in what our society will look like. Afterall, these students are our future. The current system has them trained to think in the same ways, which doesn’t allow for diversity in methods of problem solving and creativity. If our future citizens are unable to think critically, be tolerant and understanding of other perspectives, and think on their feet, then we are headed for a very grim course of events. However, if we institute changes that support educational partnership and personalization of the material, our community would benefit exponentially.
Works cited
Eisner, Elliot W. "Questionable Assumptions About Schooling." Print.
Epstein, Joyce L. “School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share.” The Phi Delta Kappan 76.9 (1995): 701-712. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Meier, Deborah. “How Our Schools Could Be.” The Phi Delta Kappan 76.5 (1995):
369-373. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Noddings, Nel. “What Can Teachers Learn From Research.” Kappa Delta Pi Record 46.1 (2009): 23-25. Print.