Why Should Schools Continue to Exist - Report Example

Why should schools continue to exist? Your name Name of university The absurdity of the question of whether schools should continue to exist or not is rendered by the controversy of the definition of the word: school. Strictly speaking, a school is an institution or situation in which learning takes place. To define school as such gives rise to another controversy that result from the fact that every time is a learning moment. Just like Shakespeare says, the world is a stage…(Dolan, 2000); I would propose that the world is a learning experience and therefore a school. With this in view, it means that because the world exists, the school that is the world is inevitable. Deschooling, a notion handled by Illich in his book 'Deschooling Society', gives it another perspective worthy examination. To tackle this issue, one needs to get a working definition for school. The school, according to Illich (1970) is taken to be a formal situation, institutionalized, in which knowledge is imparted to individuals. It is against this background that we shall examine the notion of schooling. In his book, Deschooling Society, where he tries to dwarf the institutionalized society, he talks about many other capitalistic institutions among them being school. His work is set against the background of 1960’s when there was criticism of the institutionalized society. He juxtaposes school and education and says that they are diametrically opposed concepts. School as a ritualized concept comes clear in his criticisms that border on sheer controversy: there is no other servitude than the belief that school is the only way of obtaining knowledge. Rather, there are other more practical ways of obtaining knowledge. It is in his work that most arguments are to burst alive in this paper. This paper, therefore, is going to base its arguments in the foundations that this scholar of the twentieth century lays. Another perspective of the issue that cannot escape mention is the way the society uses school as a way of fragmentation, stratification and therefore the issue of the age old social cleavage. Firstly, set against the mythical aspect of predetermination as opposed to spontaneity or self perpetuating progress, the process of schooling is dwarfed by Illich (1970) where he says "… Schooling-the production of knowledge, the marketing of knowledge, which is what the school amounts to-draws society into the trap of thinking that knowledge is hygienic, pure, respectable, deodorized, produced by human heads and amassed in a stock" ( pp.19-20). This, however, is not the case because the divinity of knowledge does not have its roots in the aspect of amassing but the ability to use or apply the knowledge in the daily lives of individuals so as to produce an all rounded individual. This therefore drifts the argument to the perspective of gaining experience practically as a source of knowledge. Although someone cannot live long enough to experience everything, they can always learn from experience of others. Knowledge is power, so goes the adage, but the source does not have to be exclusively schooling. In addition, knowledge cannot be amassed and stored without putting it into practice. Schooling, too, does not guarantee absorption of knowledge because of the idiosyncrasies that arise from individual pedagogical processes. This paradoxically attacks the institution of school that claims to pride in making acquisition of knowledge universal. The institution, therefore, does not achieve its functions. However, the society has programmed its people to believe this thus bracing the aspect of servitude. William Durant (1927) gives schooling yet another dimension when he says that knowledge is power but only wisdom is liberty. People go to school in search of knowledge. But does that knowledge amount to wisdom? This is seldom the case. Most university professors find themselves full of knowledge but devoid of wisdom. This argument excludes them from the breed that the society needs to thrive. For instance, a professor of Analytical Chemistry who can perfectly teach Chemistry but cannot apply this knowledge in research deniers the basket of wisdom that is due. Use of knowledge to create more knowledge is the bottom line of wisdom. Schools, therefore, churn out people who cannot add value to the society often times than those that can help the society. The curricula in formal schools, most of them, use examination as the only form of assessment which denies the learner the opportunity to practice what they learn. William Durant (1927) therefore views the society from the perspective of freeing the mind than imprisoning it. Against this, therefore, we can say that schools, as we know them, only give somebody the power to understand things but not the power to apply them in their daily lives. Albert Einstein also contends that information is not knowledge (Shwebber, 2008). Therefore, this takes us back to the drawing board and exposes us to the danger of believing that the information we receive from school is knowledge yet it needs some synthesis to make it palatable. From this argument, we only receive information from school that we need to apply some input to change to a consumable product just like we change raw materials into consumables by processing them. We, as a result of that, need to be part of the process of gaining that knowledge from the information to make it of value. The concepts of teaching and learning also come as a result of the arguments that proceed from the role of the two people in the schooling process. Illich (1970) argues that the teachers and learners, as opposed to the common belief, should be equals because both of them have something to give and take. In the institutionalized society, the learners are perceived as empty heads that can only take but not give. Illich says that the teachers should also pay attention to the intrigues that rock the learners’ world, therefore learning from them. Schools do not embrace this because they bestow too much power on the teachers. This risk makes the learners unable to contribute to the learning process and therefore lead to their lack of or inadequate, at best, motivation in the learning process. Denial of these opportunities to invent and innovate leads to a degenerative society that does not recognize the novelty in the cognitive faculty of learners. The compulsory basis of schooling, as seen by Illich, also makes schooling a thing but not an activity because some people are forced to study what they might not be interested in. Therefore, schools, as much as they add value to the society, need to be a bit liberal to make the process quite deliberate. The role of parents in the schooling of their children also comes to frame. The parents who choose careers for their children are guided by the institutionalized systems of education. Were it liberal, education would give the children a chance to learn in an environment they desire and to choose what they enjoy doing. However, this does not happen, owing to the fact that education has been introduced to the children as a way of earning a living than a way of bettering oneself. Schools may also force the learners to do what might not be within their interest by imposing curricular and curtailing freedom of choice so necessary to the learners. This is done through specialization. For instance, some schools in East Africa only teach the British based curriculum as opposed to others thus limiting choice therefore imposition. If it were not institutionalized, the learners would be free to choose what to engage in. this would be of more value than imposition. The technological aspect as well as individual differences and abilities do not also escape mention. The rate at which technology is moving especially in the 21st century, does not allow school to be institutionalized. This is because the schools, due to their curriculum, especially formal and compulsory schooling, do not allow for invention by individuals. The schedules set by the schools do not give allowance for personal study as such so as to come up with new ideas. Learners can tap into the available technology, especially the internet to come up with ideas that can be baked to make something worthy. Such reasoning is what has led to the introduction of the ideas incubation departments in institutions of higher learning so as to appreciate what the mind can do at free gear. However, with the bureaucracies that rock the institutionalized society still curtail the power that these ideas exude by making it harder for them to put them into practice, rendering this endeavor useless and valueless. Individual differences as presented by different people are also an issue. These include talent and the ability to learn. Different people have different talents. Man cannot try to institutionalize talent. For instance, athletes can only practice their talent in conditions and situations only fit for them and not others. Taking them to school as a compulsory exercise does not expose them to the challenges and opportunities fit for them. So as to exploit their talent, they need to be given the freedom to choose what they do at different times. The ability to learn also varies across different categories of individuals. Because of this variation, though efforts have been put to check this, excludes learners with special needs like special learning thus making an imbalance between the two to be very clear. Learners with special needs are therefore not taken care of by the schooling system of education. Another point of concern proposed by Illich (1970) is the fact that emanates from the myth of institutionalized values. This examines the role of external factors in the acquisition of knowledge. Though not explicitly against the idea of schooling that otherwise reorganizes one in terms of identifying their belonging and self discovery in a planned environment, Illich says that learning is a deliberate effort that needs least interference by manipulation by others. Learning proceeds from the fact that it is derived through participation and not instruction. Most schools believe in instruction as the only way of imparting knowledge which makes schooling unworthy pursuing. Learners, therefore, should be left to their own devices with minimal control to decide what to do and the time to do it. Here Illich demystifies the relation between attendance and acquisition of knowledge. It becomes clear that the two do not have a direct correlation. Attendance does not necessarily guarantee acquisition of knowledge. Another perspective raised by Illich (1970) proceeds from the myth of measurement of values. Here, he argues that qualitative as opposed to quantitative measures are to be stressed. In schooling, what is stressed is the latter aspect that leads to devaluing education or acquisition of knowledge. In schooling, he says, the system exposes the learner to a straitjacket that makes him to depend on comparison for satisfaction. They believe in status quo and have to fit themselves into where the society has made them to believe they belong. In his efforts to deschool the society along this argument, Illich tries to remove the learner from an environment where they believe in quantity and to expose them to the light and reality of quality as the true measure of benefits of knowledge. The bottom line in all arguments concerning school though skewed towards the 'deschooling' school of thought give a chance to look at the positive aspects of schooling. As an organized way of imparting knowledge and skills, schooling if used well can be of benefit to the society. What most scholars of this day contend with is the fact that schooling is made compulsory by systems thus making it a form of servitude. From the perspective of Illich that the society should embrace the dimension of liberalizing learning, we can conclude that schooling should continue existing but should be made liberal and should not pose limitations to the learners. Owing to the fact, too, that the bitterest pain among men is t to have much knowledge but no power, we can say that learning should be accompanied with empowerment, not necessarily through schooling. From another perspective that the world or society is a school in itself, we can also say that schools are inevitable because worldly experiences never cease too exist. References Cayley, D. (1992). Ivan Illich in Conversation. Concord, Ontario: Anansi Press. Dolan, F. E. (2000). "Introduction" in Shakespeare, As You Like It. New York: Penguin Books. Durant, W. (1927). Transition: A Sentimental Story of One Mind and One Era, Garden City NY: Garden City Pub. Company. Gabbard, D. A. (1993). Silencing Ivan Illich: A Foucauldian Analysis of Intellectual Exclusion. New York: Austin & Winfield Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row J. H Ballentine & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society: a sociological approach to education (2nd Ed.) (pp.529-536), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson. Schweber, S. S. (2008). Einstein and Oppenheimer: The Meaning of Genius. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Read More