Questions on Readings: Knight and KoonceDaniel CoffinConcordia University, Nebraska

Submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for EDUC 501May 9th, 2015

George Knight writes that mindlessness in education is a natural outcome for a society which has traditionally been concerned with the how rather than the why of modern life (2008, p. 3). This mindlessness manifests in the frenetic pace with which education pundits and practitioners alike generate ever more elaborate ways of doing things without ever attempting to definitively answer the question of why we as a society educate our young. Compulsory education for youths is hardly a universal feature of every human society; it is a choice we as a society have made. Why? As public education is sustained by the populace (willingly or no) through tax revenues, I think it only proper that the proper end of public education should be to serve the needs of the populace. That is to say, education should serve the function of preparing youths to become productive members of society through informal learning (social interaction with peers and teachers), directed education to develop understanding of the arts and sciences, and, in some cases, training to develop a competency in a particular skill (Wright, 2008, p. 9-11). Productive members of society need to be able to get along with each other or at least be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Productive members of society should take advantage of as broad an education as possible so as to be prepared for any number of job opportunities upon entering the workforce. Training, I would argue, should be restricted in school to competencies with relevance to a number of fields (computer operation, for example). The three basic categories of philosophical inquiry are metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology (Wright, 2008, p. 9). Questions of metaphysics, including cosmology, theology, anthropology, and ontology, have little interest for me because I havent the training to seriously investigate these issues and I profess no religious faith which gives me any guidance in these matters. The notion of whether human beings are born good, bad, or morally neutral (Wright, 2008, p. 18), for instance, doesnt concern me in my day-to-day work. Whether children are born angels, devils, or just kids, it is still my duty to help educate them to the best of my ability. I suspect that my lack of interest in all things metaphysical is due to my epistemological leanings. In answer to the question, How do we know? I would answer, through the senses and experience, making me an empiricist (Wright, 2008, p. 22). Are our natural human senses faulty or weak, unable to tell the difference between colors in a picture posted on Facebook or the (relatively) vast spaces between atoms in what appears to be a solid tabletop? Certainly. When I am reminded of the limitations of human sense faculties, I am comforted by the words of author Robert E. Howards character Conan the Barbarian, Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me (2003, p. 147). This brings us to axiology, that arena of philosophical inquiry which addresses questions of value, like ethics or aesthetics (Wright, 2008, p. 29-31). I consider myself to be a utilitarian, and I try to model utilitarian ideals in the classroom by allowing students to vote on project options, field trips, etc., with the majority carrying the day. I try to make students aware of aesthetics in the contexts of film, literature, and informational text, but at my grade level, this is of secondary importance to making sure that students can make sense of the text. Frank Herbert wrote that every experience carries its lesson, (1990, p. 47), and this idea has stuck with me throughout my teaching career. I was particularly drawn, then, to John Deweys critique of educational experiences, particularly when he noted that the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 17). What, then, makes experiences non-educative? According to Dewey, experiences may be so disconnected from one another that, while each is agreeable or even exciting in itself their disconnectedness may artificially generate dispersive, disintegrated, centrifugal habits (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 17). In other words, for experiences to be genuinely educative, they must be structured in such a way as to give them meaning. Flying a kite, examining bird feathers, and hanging your arm out a moving cars window independently might not mean much of anything to a student, but properly structured with interstitial instruction, they might provide great educative experiences about the principles of flight. The idea that information outside of a structure that gives it context is not only non-educative but actively antagonistic to education is echoed by Roger Scruton who writes that information, as currently conceived, is the enemy of knowledge - a mass of unsorted facts and factoids, pouring from the screen with the incoherence of a madmans monologue (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 20). It follows, then, that someone needs to provide the structure for those experiences, to sort the facts and factoids according to a plan. But whom? Not the teacher, if John Holt has anything to say about it. For a teacher to impose upon a series of educative experiences the structure that gives them meaning is equivalent in his mind to the destruction of that students freedom of thought and a demand of the student that you must not think about what interests ad concerns you, but about what interests and concerns us (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 29). The only way I know how to address Holt, who characterizes a standardized curriculum as a gross violation of civil liberties (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 29) is this: do we allow children to drive? To work? To eat only what they desire? To play with whatever happens to catch their interest? Of course not. And why? Because children dont know what is best for themselves, and so a responsible adult provides guidance until the age of majority, at which point said child is legally presumed to have developed the maturity and judgment to fend for itself. Similarly, we do not allow children to pick and choose only the aspects of learning that most interest them because those most interesting aspects, individually or in toto, might not provide children with the educational foundation they will need to go on to success in college or career. Proceeding, then, on the notion that a standardized curriculum is not only the best but the only way to provide structure to learning for the majority of students, we must ask: how will such a curriculum be enacted? Mortimer Adler, in his Paideia Proposal, provides an excellent model curriculum encompassing reading, writing, speaking, and listening mathematical and scientific skills observing, measuring, estimating, and calculating; and skills in the use of the computer and of other scientific instruments They were once called the liberal arts - the intellectual skills indispensable to being competent as a learner (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 26). Why are the liberal arts still relevant to education after thousands of years? Because a standardized curriculum designed to give all students a broad-based education makes talented generalists of every student, regardless of whatever vocation or further specialized education a student decides to pursue after schooling. Not only do I believe it is true, as Mortimer Adler does, that for the sake of preserving and enhancing our cultural traditions, as well as for the health of science and scholarship, we need generally cultivated human beings (as cited in Koonce, 2014, p. 28). Furthermore, we are living at a time when technology continues to advance at a pace never before seen in history. Every year brings new advances, and new jobs and economies sustained by those advances. There is no way for specialized or technical training in todays schools to look forward and prepare students for the wonders just around the corner. We can, however, give students structured learning experiences which have stood the test of time - from the time of the stylus and the wax tablet to the age of the iPad - and will lay a broad and firm foundation for tomorrows advances.

ReferencesHerbert, F. (1990). Dune. New York, NY: Ace. Howard, R.E. (2003). The coming of conan the cimmerian: The original adventures of the greatest sword and sorcery hero of all time! New York, NY: Del Ray. Knight, G. R. (2008). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy, fourth edition. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. Koonce, G.L. (2014). Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues, eighteen edition expanded. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.