Confusion over the root of Education.

What does Davaodave mean by 'the root' of education? Presumably not the etymological root because no inverted commas around the word education.

I took the question to mean the sociological necessity of educating the young in their native culture, for without so teaching the young about, and inducting them into,their native culture the society would not continue to exist as a society and would be an aggregate of people. Ideas and cultures of behaviour are more globally the same as each other than previously, because folk education is not given much curricular time, the social stage is international.

Kameshwar is right that training and education are not the same, and I'd add that indoctrination is something else that may parade under the name of education. There is nothing wrong and much that is right with training, but indoctrination is usually a ploy of a regime to repress of those who are undergoing indoctrination.

I claim that the cause of education is best addressed sociologically,and add with a taste of historically, but talk of education is soon talk about ethics. The fact is that we are now a global society, environmentally and politically, and any departure from global values is a sweetener to multiculturism or local ethnic traditions. Ethically I put freedom of the individual at the top of the list of ethical criteria. Freedom of the individual is got from liberal and well financed education.

Freedom of the individual comes with the individual's attaining insight into her own reactions and learning how to apply reason and compassion to her reactions so that they are refined into socialised feelings and behaviours. Also too, freedom comes with knowledge about the world, which is now so large that the student needs to know how to sort, grade and research the world store of knowledge. Lastly, vocational training should blend with liberal education so that work of any sort is done humanely.

I do realise that I am assuming that modernism has arrived almost world wide and is here to stay. Kameshwar mentioned Macaulay on Indian education. There is not much wrong with Macaulay's humanism and desire to induct Indians into autonomy in a modern world via the English language and the sciences that were and for historial reasons expressed in English.

There has been criticism of American education. I assume this is aimed at free education of school children, because American universities are arguably the best. In the UK where I live there is a creeping so-called Americanisation of secondary schools. This process is due to the way in which a novel style of schools are financed and run, not by local authorities but by private bodies such as commercials and religions. True, the UK has always been bedevilled, may I say, by 'faith schools' but the sort of faiths that have lately assumed control of curriculums here and there are backward, ignorant and repressive faiths such as Christian creationists. I can only suppose that American secondary schools are financed and controlled not by local authorities but by commercials and churches. But I do not know and will have to look it up.

Wannabe,

I agree with what you have written, but I suggest that it is totally inadequate in the context of our present discussion. The reason? It is totally subjective. The only person who could decide who is or is not educated on your model would be the individual himself. Had he acquired the knowledge necessary for him to be able to do wha he wanted to do?

This would make statements like "the people in vountry X are poorly educated" meaningless as the statement refers to a group of people each of whom has his own standards for determining educatedness. Such a situation would very probably lead to a quick disappearance of the word "educated" from our lexicon. But, for as long as it remains viable, we need to have a different definition - one that can refer both to individuals and to groups.

Another problem that I see with your suggestion is that it refers ONLY to knowing and knowledge. Doesn't being educated consist of more than simply knowing things? Consider this scenario. A brilliant university teacher - one who is highly respected by his students and his colleagues for his knowledge and teaching skills - is discovered to be involved in domestic violence against his wife and children. Is he "educated"? If not, why not?

We live in social groups, so any definition of Education should be capable of being applied to groups as well as to individuals.

Davaodave,

Subjective I don't see the problem with that.

This would make statements like "the people in vountry X are poorly educated" meaningless as the statement refers to a group of people each of whom has his own standards for determining educatedness. Such a situation would very probably lead to a quick disappearance of the word "educated" from our lexicon. But, for as long as it remains viable, we need to have a different definition - one that can refer both to individuals and to groups.

Let's talk about subjectivity for a second:

Travel with me to the heart of Africa where our philosophy discussion here means were poorly educated. Why? You ask. If we were somehow typing this to each other from huts we would certainly be killed mid sentence by militia men from the competing tribes. We are uneducated in the ways of survival for these circumstances.

If you want an objective definition of education that means knowing every last thing in the entire Universe. There is no such thing as one size fits all for definitions. That's why there's always more than one definition for every word, context.

Your professor is more educated in academics than he is in domestics. Clearly we wanted a professional career significantly more than a domestic life when he chose his educational path.

Analyze a group enough; you will find that they are not a similar as you think and you could just as easily group them another way.

Small class rooms work better because they allow for more subjectivity and individuality.

We live in subjective circumstances, we only get objectivity when we are highly specific.

I had assumed that we were talking about the institution of education in post industrial societies as it is and how it should be.

If we want to compare the above with the education of the young and/ or the perpetuation of cultures among traditional societies let us do so but let us also place the latter discussion in a new thread for the sake of convenience.

Indeed Belinda, however Davaodave has seemingly changed the subject in bringing up subjectivity.

Wannabe,

Why do we have and use dictionaries?

How many definitions of "educated" can you find in the dictionary?

Do these definitions not set boundaries for what we can understand by "educated"? Not only what we can understand but also the limits of any discussion on the topic?

If every individual had his or her own definition of a term, communication would be extremely hard - assuming that it was possible at all.

That is what I am trying to get at. I am trying to find a serviceable meaning for "educated" that we can all understand and use successfully in our communications with each other.

Belinda,

I don't wnt to give a definition of "educated" yet, but I can say that I believe that a definition can be found that can be used for any culture. What will change is the content of the education. The objective will be the same across cultures.

To make this easier to see, consider Wannabe's African tribe. If asked, they will be able to tell you what they understand by being "educated" - IN THEIR CULTURE. It will be very different from what you or I understand, but it still enables them to say that a person is or is not educated. What will differ is the content - what one needs to know and to be able to do - in order to earn the accolade.

I have said that education is for socialising the young into the culture of the society. I chose this definition because it applies to all societies regardless of their economic base.

Of course we don't want to be accused of being Euro-centred, but the fact at present is that this is a world that has a global culture which is the most powerful of all cultures. The global culture I refer to is that which began approximately with Enlightenment values and science. 'African tribes' need to be able to participate in this culture as well as practising their native ethnicites if they are to survive. This is not at all to say that people whose native culture is mostly that of the scientific Enlightenment cannot learn from ethnic minorities, and even from European medieval thinking.

I am thinking particularly at this time of the Amazonian tribe who have appealed for help to the outside world against illegal loggers. Such people need power of their own as much as or more than charity from outside.Education is power for freedom.

Davaodave,

In a holistic sense, to be educated means: to know everything possible there is to know about what one wants to do.

educated 1.having undergone education 2.characterized by or displaying qualities of culture and learning. 3.based on some information or experience

We use a dictionary to provide a(not the) definition of a word in the context of communication.

We each share the understanding of what the idea of education means, we can all share that in common. For one to be educated though is entirely different for each person.

If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question. You can't ask a broad question and expect to get any thing but a broad answer back.

I think we should focus on the lowest common denominator of education. To be educated at all means to be able to read and do arithmetic. I think it is agreeable that this is the bare minimum of education. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Belinda,

I have said that education is for socialising the young into the culture of the society.

This is more indoctrination(negative connotation aside). This tells them what they can't do, not what they can do.

Wanabe wrote:

Belinda,

I have said that education is for socialising the young into the culture of the society.

This is more indoctrination(negative connotation aside). This tells them what they can't do, not what they can do.

Wanabe, I believe that the way in which I use 'socialisation' is the normal way we use the term , which is instilling values, training and knowledge and for humans usually includes the practice of some sort of rituals to mark important events or stages in a life or in the society's communal memories.

Besides education, indoctrination is also positive as well as negative.The positives of indoctrination are probably more harmful than the negatives.

**************************

I understand that Davaodave's attitude is that of de haut en bas nevetheless so softly and politely. Davaodave's approach sounds to me to be that of a teacher of the comparatively unthinking who need to be led to think more widely . I am not sure what Davaodave's attitude to knowledge of facts is. Davaodave, what do you personally get out of this conversation. ?

Here is a quotation from Davaodave's introduction at #1 to the topic of philosophy of education:

My function is not to provide my students with pre-digested facts that can be examined by means of a multiple-choice test. It is to provide them with the materials upon which to base their own thinking and further discovery according to their interests and talents - and the testing process has to provide them with opportunities to display that thinking.

This function is admirable and one which has been taught to me too by my teachers, however there are established facts and information retrieval about established facts which is an acccepted part of curriculums now as it has been for a few decades at least for liberal teachers. The 'materials' referred to are ideas and authorisation of the ideas, i.e. facts. This is not all ; there is also learning how to justify and evaluate the 'facts' . While discursive methods such as Davaodave's are very useful for social skills as well as for crystallising ideas, the more direct polemic followed by subsequent evaluations hits the target quicker . I think we all know that nobody lacks a personal point of view.Indeed it would be impossible to compare various points of view unless one stood upon a personal Archimidean locus.

A friend of mine told a true story about a teacher in an English 'public' school, early twentieth century,good discipline, who began a lesson by writing on the blackboard 'I do not want to teach you anything today', and spent the period reading his paper. This is arguably the teacher's being too subjective and at the same time placing over much responsibility upon the pupils to be personally autonomous; the power relation of teacher to pupil cannot seriously be denied, since the teacher is paid to teach others. I do view teacher/pupil as a personally- engaged cooperative effort with the teacher admitting personal failings as a know-all when the occasion arises. However there is a happy medium when the teacher, or the participant in an internet discussion, claims specific authority when he possesses it and also admits ignorance alongside willingness to learn from others when appropriate.

Belinda,

So long as you agree that socialization isn't a means of the education we are talking about here. It is not going to help them get a job or accomplish complex tasks based on their skills. As I said previously socialization tells them what they can't do, not what they can do.

I'll let Davaodave do his own talking.

Meaningful discussion of the nature and methods of education have been bedevilled by difficulty in agreeing on the root of the term. It comes from Latin, certainly, but does it come from "educare" or "educere"? The first means to fill up, as in filling up a glass with water, while the second has to do with leading or drawing out.

Minor philological note: The Latin word educare means to rear, to train, to educate. There is a related noun educator which can mean a foster-father or a teacher. The feminine educatrix means nurse. There is little doubt this is the root of our English word educate despite the popularity of the false etymology from educere.

Interesting philological note from Prismatic. I myself am not impressed by educare/educere as a mnemonic hint about what education is , or what we want it to be, although it is one way of leading into discussing education. I wonder how significant, apart from place names rivers names etc, philology is for providing sources for historians.I'd like a philosophy of history or historiography discussion.

************************

Wanabe, is education only or mainly for fitting people for paid work? How could we find evidence for this?

If it is only about fitting people for paid work should we vote for an education policy that instead aims to fit people to be happy, to be good citizens, to be good neighbours, to be peaceful, to take up hobbies, to be good warriors, to lead men into battle, to be cannon fodder, to be parents, to be diplomatic, etc. ?

Wanabe, letting Davaodave do his own talking is very polite as is customary for you. However, we are learners here, and as learners we should criticise the methods by which we are learning. Teaching methods are part of education as it is, and have changed a lot since the nineteen fifties, especially during the sixties and seventies.

Belinda,

You missed the point. "...accomplish[ing] complex tasks based on their skills." is a -possibly the- primary goal of education.

I'll use my methods to philosophize you use yours.

Wanabe, I was talking about teaching methods, not ways to do philosophy. Not the same thing.

Welcome, Prismatic, and thanks for the philological reference.

The discussion has developed very well and has brought out many of the facets of education. Let me see if I have understood your points.

Education seems to have two distinct but complementary aspects. It is concerned with knowledge and facts but is also concerned with socialisation of young people into society.

Increasingly, in modern western countries, education is seen as fitting a young person for employment and, hence, is more tightly focused than may have been the case in past times. To what extent should factors coming from the employment market be allowed to influence the content of curricula or even teaching methods?

Education is also concerned with the methods used to get students to know and understand things. Thus, we can draw distinctions between "education" and "indoctrination", "instruction", or "training". Trying to work out what these distinctions are would be an interesting exercise. Any offers?

I agree strongly with Belinda's post ( #54 of 24th April). It seems that she and I were taught similar things. I agree that, as time has passed, there has become an generally accepted core to most curricula and this perhaps reflects another of the stages through which the idea of "education" is passing.

When the sum of human knowledge was smaller than now and/or what was considered necessary for somebody to claim to be "educated", educational planners used to agonise over what should be included in a curriculum. Now, there is so much that might be included that the agonising is more likely to be over what can be omitted from the curriculum without disadvantaging the students.

Since we live in ever-increasingly technical societies, this may account for the somewhat lower priority that is now placed on what we used to call the humanities. They have been pushed aside by the sciences and technical subjects.

Before I close this post, let me throw out another idea that may stir up some more discussion. There is no doubting that "authority" plays an important part in our society. But I would like to examine the difference between being "an" authority and being "in"authority.

I think we would agree that a teacher should be "in" authority in his classroom. Indeed, one of the most unfortunate sights I can remember from my days as a professor of education was going to see a student teaching and finding that he was having difficulty in controlling his class. When we analysed the situation afterwards, it was usually the case that he had not been able to establish himself as "an" authority in the eyes of his students. He had not prepared his lessons sufficiently well to be able to convince the students that he knew what he was talking about. If you think back to your own schooldays and compare some of your teachers, I think you will agree with this, but I would be interested to hear your views on the relationship between being "an" authority and being "in" authority.

Finally, Belinda was wondering what I get out of these discussions. Firstly, I enjoy the challenge of crossing swords with other minds as it sharpens mine and can also help me to keep up to date with current thinking in more than one country. The second reason is that I am still learning about education. I do not believe there are any final definitive answers to the many problems that beset those of us in education - not least because the social environment within which education is taking place is in a state of flux that requires continuous updating of content and methods. We are all searching for answers and one way to get closer to those answers is to compare notes in a forum like this.