Education in the 21st Century: A Deschooling / Reschooling Process?
Pink
Floyd in the 70s in the epic album ‘the wall’ came out with the famous
lyrics sung by children ‘we don’t need no education, we don’t need no
thought control.’ Delving a bit into the lyrics and the history of Roger
Waters, the lead vocalist of the band, one realizes that this was a protest
song pushing for social reform along the schooling domain. It was antagonistic
towards rigid schooling prevalent in the Western hemisphere, primarily in the
U.K. and the U.S. The deromanticizing of education was made all the more potent
by reference to tyrannical teachers and pedantic pedagogy. Considering that
education was merely ‘another brick in the wall’, the poignant lyrics of
the song should have been an obvious reminder to educationists the world over.
Intriguingly,
also in the 70s, an energizing and exciting discourse on the deschooling
of society was ongoing in Latin America. This was led by Ivan Illich
(1926-2002) an Austrian by birth, who obtained formal training in philosophy
and theology. He was a staunch critic of contemporary Western institutions and
how those impacted practice of education, medicine, economic development, and
so on, all over the world. Illich, over his lifetime, argued that
schools, as so called institutions of learning, undermined the real purpose of
education – a process in which each moment of a person’s life should be lived
in a ‘learning, sharing, and caring’ manner. He was critical of the
Western legal system, stating that it heightened, rather than resolved,
people's grievances. He was also vocal about Western biomedicine, as practiced
by doctors and scientists, arguing that they were doing more disservice having
set themselves up as ‘a new, secular priesthood’. Thus, his
controversial views on most aspects of modern society, be it education, law, or
medicine, brought him into direct conflict with traditionalists in those very
disciplines.
The
basic premise of Illich’s thoughts on education, detailed in his boldly
provocative book ‘deschooling society’, is that universal education
through schooling is not feasible. Per his radical critical discourse, any
attempts at universal schooling by developing alternative curricula, improving
teaching, using technology inside or outside of school, and so on, will likely
lead us further away from that attempted universality.
An
intriguing point that Illich raises is that conventional teaching in class room
settings can quickly obfuscate reality, particularly for the impoverished child
from an under-privileged family. Even if poor children attended equivalent
schools and began at the same age, Illich argued, they would lack most of the
educational opportunities that were routinely available to the middle- or upper
class children. The advantages lacking in the case of the poor child included
conversation, books, vacation travel, and so on. This would impede the poor
child’s progress given that all she depended on was the school for learning and
progression in life. Illich went on to state that every basic societal
need, be it education, health, or else, to which a new paradigm could be
assigned was permissive to the invention of a new class of poor and a new
definition of poverty. This was Illich’s explanation for ‘modernization of
poverty’ – a situation in which poverty is defined by standards which the
technocrats can change at will.
It
was remarkably insightful per Illich’s book that it would cost about the same
to school the rich and the poor. He presented a cogent argument that there will
be total failure to improve education of the poor despite more monetary
allocation. The poor already being disadvantaged, as alluded to above, would be
even more so, when schooled in the same domain as universal public education. In
his book Illich says that the rich and poor alike depend on schools and
hospitals that guide their lives, inform their world opinion, and define their
morality. Both institutions view working on oneself and learning on one’s own
as irresponsible and unreliable. Mobilizing the community to help itself is
considered questionable regardless of one’s socioeconomic status. Illich’s
conclusion is that all important issues, education and health notwithstanding,
need to be reevaluated, and thus society as a whole, needs ‘deschooling’.
Studies
have shown that children in non-working households hear far fewer words per
hour than those from professional families. Based on this data, the conclusion
that people are bound to reach, i.e., kids with professional and well off
parents are likely more intelligent than those without, is absurd. This is no
different from the blinkered societal or communal perspective of child literacy
and education. It ignores important caveats. What if the less well off children
are more street smart or more adaptable in a volatile world order? They might
not have mastered vocabulary to the same extent as well off kids, but the
poorer ones might be more attuned to erratic environments. And they might have
a stronger, more wholesome connection with nature.
Conventional
wisdom suggests that children need schooling to learn. This ‘wisdom’ is itself
generated by schools and consequently biased. Another unquestioned dogma has
been that learning is a product of teaching. Yet there is overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Per Illich children learn to live, love, speak and play,
outside of school. Many educational research studies have indicated that the
best kind of learning is experiential - trial and error in our daily living can
make us more adept in society. Thus, entirely depending on a teacher for a
child’s learning is likely an inadequate approach. Furthermore, to become and
remain gainfully employed, one does not entirely need a teacher. Perhaps a
different approach to schooling is then needed?
Schools,
Illich argues, create a shortage of skilled personnel. The demand for highly
useful skills grows as they are performed more in the community and the skilled
‘craftsman’ can then teach others. However, in reality, people with skills in
demand are discouraged from imparting that practical knowledge. In most
situations the hurdles are created by professionals themselves – licenses are
required to practice a skill or tedious and stringent criteria exist prior to
getting certified to practice that skill set. In a fiercely competitive
consumer and capitalist society converging self-interests conspire to prevent a
man from sharing his skill. Indoctrination of the public ensures that skills
will be considered valuable and reliable only if they are the result of formal
training. The job market benefits by making skills scarce and keeping them as
such. An excellent example is the chronic shortages of nurses in the U.S.
because of the rapid dependence on 4-year bachelor’s programs in nursing.
People from poorer backgrounds who would have considered enrolling in 2- or
3-year programs ended up staying away from the nursing profession altogether.
In
a process that one might consider reschooling, Illich argues that what
is needed is a more targeted approach to schooling. A job relevant education
that focuses on the needs and demands of society will be a better approach.
Vocational education and training in or out of school can potentially create an
exceptionally skilled work force. The poor are likely to become more adept at
finding employment at the end of their shortened diploma or certificate
courses. As an example, a nurse aide or physician assistant training program
could be set up as collaboration between a public-sector school that emphasizes
vocational training and a nursing school / teaching hospital. Those students
interested in a career in health, but unlikely to join a nursing or medical
school because of staggering fees, might be redirected towards vocational
training programs that are geared for them. Their education in the final year
of school could be geared towards the health sciences, albeit from a practical
training perspective, not so much on basic science aspects. A stipend can be
added so that they have ready income to fall back on as soon as they are out of
school. They can also be attached to clinics or hospitals where they can intern
in real time. The learning achieved through that approach would be both
job-relevant and feasible. At the end of the vocational period, those who show
exceptional talent and motivation might consider adding another few years of
training and getting full nursing and medical degrees.
Illich’s
book, and the thought process inherent in it, is more than a critique of
contemporary education and schooling. It contains suggestions for redefining
learning that encompasses the individual’s lifetime. In doing so, Illich
presents a viewpoint that not only remains contemporary but has also become a
need of the day. Over a period of general deschooling and targeted reschooling
we will be better informed about universal education in a school setting. The
poorer in the community will benefit from such an approach that encourages an ‘education
with a purpose’. This might get us closer to an educational utopia - where
all have been schooled in an egalitarian manner.
[from Mixed Bag]
References:- Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. London, U.K.: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd.
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1415202/Ivan-Illich.html
Acknowledgment: A version of this article was first published by the Dawn Newspaper Blog.
The following posts are related:
- Private vs. Public Schooling: A Dilemma?
- Success: Failure Redefined?
- Parenting: An Enigma?
Comments
Post a Comment