Philosophy of Children Education - Essay Example

?Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 13 November The role of a Child’s Needs, Wants and Interests in Determining the Curriculum The topic of child education is very contentious because there are sentiments attached from all quarters of the society. Parents feel that their child’s education should be the best for him. Governments agree that children are future of the country and that time, effort and money should be invested in children’s education. Almost every second year new teaching methods are devised. Teachers are asked to follow certain procedures or teach certain topics. There is readjustment in schools from admission criteria to the marking system. In such an environment it is natural to ask questions that deal with the content of education and not methods. What should be taught and who should decide it. Should it be the government, parents or the children themselves? The question that is discussed here is whether a child’s needs and interests should determine the syllabus. At first look this question looks a bit odd because it is based on the assumption that children are mature enough to guide their own education. But what looks as an assumption is actually a vague hint at the child-centered theories that exist in modern philosophy of education. These theories believe that any education that is not child-centered is not in fact education at all (Barrow, 116) I believe that a child’s needs, wants and interests shouldn’t determine the syllabus. But in this essay I will look at both sides of the issue. I will provide reasons behind this argument. There are many theorists who believe that the children shouldn’t be trained but instead they should be nourished. But I believe that both training and nourishment are required. Rousseau discovered that Children’s mental capabilities and ways of looking at things were quite distinct from those of adults. He said that people need to recognize that children were mentally different and unique. In his book Social Contract he said that all men are born free. I agree with Rousseau but don’t believe that a child is completely free from any restriction (Chandra, 90). Children may be unique but I don’t agree with Rousseau’s line of thinking. Even George Bernard Shaw said that this was ‘‘the most flagrant lie ever told by a sane man.'' I think that the child-centered theories have become extremist in their claims about children being able to decide right curriculum for themselves. Earlier there was a dearth of philosophy of education. Now we can rest on the findings of Piaget and other researchers. But this opulence of literature on child education wasn’t always present. For a long time the only relevant theories came from a pragmatist philosopher called John Dewey. Dewey had a huge stature in United States and his personal influence led formation of tradition of philosophy of education influenced by his viewpoints. Their views are in sharp contrast to the subject-centered theories that existed before this new debate on education. Before this the education system was formed on the Christian belief of fallibility of man and his salvation through service of the God (Hastings, 587). Because of this thinking a child was an evil soul and hence it needed discipline in order to be saved from the sins. This view is completely different from the child-centered views who uphold that a child’s interest should be a beacon for his student life. The Christian view of child needing authority was flawed for various reasons. It ignored two factors: the sinfulness and fallibility of those in authority, and the necessity for a mutual responsibility between teacher and pupil for the conduct of the educational process. This mutuality is necessary for proper communication. Child-centered theorists such as A.S. Neill believe that a child’s nature is intrinsically good. They believe that a child has an innate wisdom and realism (Neill, 200). Here we see diametrically opposite views on the innate quality of children. It is the adults who determine the syllabus and so it is inevitable that they put many things in the syllabus which they regard as important. The world around us is a reflection of our thoughts and actions. This world is created by us. It may be brutal or peaceful, rewarding or punishing. But the fact remains that adults through their actions create this world. So when a child comes into this world and question of his/her education arises, then the answer certainly lies with the creators of this world. Let us take an example of a workplace. Suppose a new employee joins the office. Before his arrival the whole infrastructure was already present there. There were rooms, machines, experienced people and rules of the office. Work was assigned to each person and appraisals were conducted to determine efficiency of individual employees. When a new employee joins the workplace, she is expected to learn the work and also work related practices. She has to undergo the whole training and then join the team in which she is working. Gradually she may master her work and then try to introduce new ideas into the office. These ideas can be beneficial or not beneficial. But she can be influential only after certain time or she reaches a certain position. Her inner strengths may drive her towards excellence and even eccentricities at workplace, but to be really influential she will have to prove much more. This example can serve as an analogy with a child’s arrival in this world. The child inherits a civilization which has made tremendous progresses in many fields. Whatever a child’s inner qualities or interests are, it has to first ‘catch up’ with the world. The language has to be learnt, thoughts have to be synchronized and importance and beauty of relationships has to be realized. Once a child learns the basic things then he/her develops his own psyche. His outlook towards things changes with respect to others. His interests may lead him to unsolved mysteries or wonders of simple phenomena around us. The flowering of his inner personality can take place after his basic needs are met. It is interesting to note that the interests of a child don’t come out of thin air. They are extensions of the world he observes around himself. Interests can be developed only when a child is exposed to them. A child who has never been exposed to pottery can never be interested in it. It is only after repeated exposures that a child develops interests. Until now it has been argued that since a child is a new comer and also a late comer to this world, it has to learn to look at things the way people look at. It has to talk their talk and walk their walk. It is only after mastery over these basic activities that a child can be in position of expressing his interests and needs. But before that it is better if teachers and other authorities form a syllabus according to their views. There are many studies which reveal that a major reason behind a child’s unhappy adult life is a troubled or unfulfilling childhood. Most of the criminals who end up on the wrong side of the law have had a traumatic childhood. Love is a need which precedes every other need expect food, clothes and shelter. It is proven that breast milk is the best milk for a child (Jenson, 712). These are the needs which are immediately taken care of by parents. All these needs show that a child’s needs are to met by others. A child is incapable of having a hold on its own survival, leave alone his future. Apart from physical and psychological needs, there are intellectual needs that have to be fulfilled. When a child becomes old enough to be aware of his needs then the role of schools comes into the place. It is at this point there should be a discussion over the role of the school syllabus. Should it function to teach children about various subjects or should it focus on creating highly intelligent students specializing in their respective interests. As argued earlier, how can a child’s inclination towards a particular subject be trusted, if he hasn’t been exposed to all other subjects. Should interests be treated as ‘love at first sight’ where the child’s interest dictates the course of his study and the syllabus? What guarantee is it that a child interested in music will not switch to philosophy at later part in his education? The whole purpose of education should be debated here. Should schools function to inform children and help them develop their interests or should they focus on producing excellent results in form of highly specialized students. Such specialized students may have knowledge of their field but may falter at other subjects. Does the education system want to develop All-Rounders or specialists? In earlier times the number of subjects used to be limited. But with the discoveries in various fields, new areas have opened up for investigation. Now there are hundreds of subjects which offer knowledge on their respective fields. It is a challenge to inform children of all these subjects to help them make an informed choice. Children’s interests, needs and wants create a huge problem for the education system. Most of the schools function independently of each other. But if child’s interests are the focal point of the education policy then there has to be an integrated system which includes all the schools in the area. Rather than a collection of individual entities called schools, the education system has to be like an intricate web of schools, all schools being open to students willing to pursue their interests. A child’s school may not provide course on Horse-riding but other institute may. And for this purpose there needs to be integration between these two institutions. Otherwise the child ends up paying much more than his/her parents can afford. It is interesting as to whether philosophy of education can be separated from the economics of education. A child who is interested in learning poetry, music, science and sports can learn none of these of he can’t afford to study these courses. Millions of children around the world don’t receive any formal education because their families are too busy to make the two ends meet. There has to be a balance between the child’s wants and society’s requirements. A child’s wants are shaped by his interests. After a child’s needs are met and then his interests make him ‘want’ some things, then there has to be a harmony between his ‘wants’ and the society at large. If a child wants to study law and become a lawyer, then there has to be a need for a lawyer in the society. If for a job of one lawyer, twenty other children are interested then the child may follow his interest but may not achieve his wants. His need (some other job) and interests (Law) may be fulfilled but his want (become a lawyer) might not materialize. This argument may lead us to believe that employers and employment should dictate the syllabus in schools. Another problem with preparing syllabus according to child’s needs is the phenomenon called exams. What purpose would then exams hold. Will they serve to tell us about the magnitude of ‘interest’ a child has in a particular subject. And if the child fails, then should be considered a signal of ‘lack of interest’ in subjects or lack of competence and intelligence. What will be the consequences if the child fails to pass any subject and hence shows ‘lack of interest’ in any subject? In that case should the improvements be sought in adequate lessons and training in the subject or should there be a never ending search for that one subject where the child may excel. The word interest doesn’t automatically involve other words such as passion and dedication. A child may be interested in the subject but lack dedication to pursue it. Interests can be superficial and hence, a child’s interest cannot be used as a yardstick while formulation of syllabus. Let us assume that education should be for the sake of learning. That society’s employment requirements shouldn’t influence the way education is imparted in schools. Then if child’s interests and wants are used in preparing the syllabus then following questions can be raised - 1- Is it compatible with teachers and schools who teach for money? 2- Should teachers be allowed to teach mostly those topics that interest them? 3- What will happen if children want to take this attitude of learning only their ‘interest’ subjects into work place? 4- What if one interest leads to another? How does a school deal with this shift? I think that the concept is taken too far. I believe that a child’s needs, wants and interests should not be used to formulate syllabus. I think the problem is not incompatibility between school curriculums and child interest, the major conflict is between child interest and teaching methods. If a child does not respond to a particular teaching method then that method should be discontinued. May be the answer doesn’t lie in teaching children subject of their interest but in teaching subjects interestingly. Let us assume that a child’s needs and interests are taken care of while preparing a syllabus. But things can go drastically wrong if the teaching methods are not correct. A dedicated student with average intelligence can still find a subject hard if he can’t relate to the practical application of the topic. A lot of research has been conducted on the best way to teach students. Most of the researches confirm that teaching through visual aids is much more effective than audio modes (Walter, 1000). This is where the importance of videos comes into the picture. The answer to the problem of education probably lies in eastern philosophy. The ancient sages of china conceived human nature as stemming from the Yang, from which came a host of good spirits called shen; and the yin, from which came a lot of evil spirits called kwei. Counterparts and conflicting opposites, the yang and yin were nevertheless considered to complement each other in the formation of a creative force whose product was heaven and earth with its fruits. Their symbol was a circle divided into two embryonic shapes, one white and one black, whose significance was life, universal power, and the mysterious polarities that inhere in the nature of man. Confucius thought that human conduct must first be made correct, and then man's relations to God and the universe would take care of itself. Lao Tze thought that man must first establish himself in harmony and the universal principle (Tao) and righteous conduct will follow through its own intrinsic nature. These two philosophies can be used in education. Proper training and discipline is necessary for the mind while a child’s heart and imagination will be nourished by the education. A combination of all the above factors will make education a success, not the childish demands and interests of the children. Works Cited Barrow, R. and Woods, R. An Introduction to Philosophy of Education. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print Chandra, S. and Sharma, R. Principles of Education. Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2004. Print. Hastings, J. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. New York: Elibron.com, 2001. Print. Neill, A. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Education. New York, 1969. Print. Jensen, A. Drugs and Human Lactation. New York: Elsevier, 1996. Print. Walter, M. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: MacMillan, 1969. Print. Read More