I would argue - definitely not.
Training yes, perhaps good; but this for me is not education.
Labours view is to cram our students with information that they regurgitate on request. I call this training.
For me education is inspiring young people to have a goal in life. For this one needs enthusiastic inspiring teachers. Without the inspirational element - it's all a waste of time.
If young people don't know what they really want to do other than having a means of earning money, then as a society, I believe, all is lost.
I suggest that his is why such a lot of binge drinking goes on. You often come across people that wake up to the fact at forty, that they aren't doing things they really enjoy. So they quite their jobs and do something completely different. Often people feel trapped because they have incurred financial commitments that need a high salary that they can't support.
By contrast there are a few people who have stopped and asked some pretty hard questions.
I met a woman like this yesterday selling her wood craft products. She has developed a whole different lifestyle and it shows in the bowls, benches spoons and wood flowers that she makes. They are full of life and enjoyment - there is a sense of fun throughout. For much of the year she lives in a 'tent', surrounded by the love of her life - trees. She spots the ones that will yield beautiful shapes for her products. This person has obviously thought deeply about her way of life and appears to be having a ball. All because she has stopped and thought things through. She has a very clear philosophy of life.
Yes, the most important subject that people can do at school is philosophy. This is not a dry subject.
It's beauty is that it does not provide answers, unlike many other subjects it poses endless questions about what is important to us. What is it that gives us pleasure, contentment ? What are the most important things in life? When you got these sorted out then depression and a lack of direction is but a fleeting experience.
Yet this subject is not on any school national curriculum except as I suspect as a dry subject in the sixth form ,considering what previous philosophers thought. In the hands of an inspired teacher this can infact come alive.
As I understand it, other countries put philosphy of the kind I'm talking about as a compulsory subject from an early age. Is this why for instance France has such a well adjusted society ? In his book "French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" available on-line, Gary Gutting discusses the privileged role of philosophy in the French educational system.
For me there needs to be a distinction between people with a religion that states the "we have the answers - do as we tell you" and people who have a well thought out philosophy that is in the process of finding answers for them ( and only for them because no philosophy can be 'right' - it is only right for the individual as far as they have thought things out). These people will never claim to have found any answers but a lot of important questions. Their answers are constantly under review and the best they can come up with at the time.
Make any sense to anyone?
Note I suspect that those that can only offer smart alec remarks to a serious subject, find it difficult to be serious about anything - and probably haven't got round to sorting out their philosophy of life.
For more edifying comments on this topic try the West Gaz Forum under News and the above headline.
1 comment:
I think I must be a congenital contrarian. Whenever anyone else advances an opinion, I automatically want to put forward the opposite view whether I believe it or not.
It is true the government has concentrated more on training than education but I am not at all sure that this is not what the children would prefer and what they ought to get.
If children are going to survive they need a number of skills. They ought to be able to write and express their views in a way that will be intelligible to others and that means they have to be taught the rules of grammar, spelling (if there were any rules for spelling ) and the other factors making up the subject of English. They also have to be able to deal with arithmetic not to mention these days being able to use a computer and to have some knowledge of science.
There are therefore a number of skills that have to be taught in the old gradgrind manner.
It seems these days you can hardly open a newspaper without seeing a plea for yet another subject to be added to the curriculum. Unfortunately the government often gives into the pressure and we start to have compulsory "citizenship" and other similarly vapid subjects. I certainly enjoy philosophy but am not at all sure it will mean much to the average teenager. If it is to mean anything, the person studying it needs some experience of life not to mention the development of his ability to deal with abstract concepts which only comes with adolescence.
I note what you say about teachers inspiring their students but when I look back to my own school days there may have been one or two but precious few of those who taught me whose teaching I would describe as inspiring.
So my prescription for education is not too far away from the government's. There ought to be a core of lessons teaching them the skills they will need and which the country will need from them for the future. The subjects I would put forward for this core would be English, Math's, science, IT and a foreign language.
This would take three quarters of their time. For the rest it would be for the school and the teachers to decide what they would like to teach.
Post a Comment