The readings for this theme are centered around What is the Purpose of American Education? and that is a question that has many answers. The truth is the purpose of education has changed over the years as the economics of the country have changed. In the 1950’s and 60’s the purpose of education were different. Two parents home provided for the character education needed to produce the “right citizens”. Schools didn’t need to focus on teaching respect and responsibility and citizenship those things were taught at home. But that was then and this is now. The family structure at home is different and for many, many students if they are not taught it at school they will not learn it. Part of the education students receive at school has to be teaching students what it means to be the “right citizens” and the “right human beings”. A few years ago our school tackled behavioral and discipline referrals by becoming a PBIS school. Through the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports program we adopted through school wide expectations - Respect, Responsibility and Caring. The issue we ran into was students didn’t know what respect looked like. We had to actually teach students what respect was and how it would look in their everyday lives. Since the implementation of this program and the actually teaching of expectations the amount of discipline referrals dropped drastically and the culture and climate of our school changed as well. So decades ago it might have not been the purpose of the school to create the “right citizens” and the “right human beings” but it has to be now because of how our country has changed. The ultimate goal of schools should be “social efficiency” or preparing the “right workers”. I see nothing wrong with this being the purpose of education. In the 1950’s and 60’s the country needed factory workers and it was acceptable that students were tracked and prepared differently as that is what our country needed we needed all different types of workers for a multitude of different jobs. Again that was then, this is now. There is a small percentage of factory worker jobs left. Decades ago if you didn’t succeed in school, there was a factory job waiting for you, but that is not the case anymore. (See graph below) I can use my good friends as examples. Neither wanted to go to college so upon high school graduation they got married and went to work at the local factory making refrigerators, washers and dryers. Five years ago after working with the company for almost 30 years the company closed and moved to Mexico leaving them with no jobs and only a high school education. Today's students have to succeed now more than ever and we have to prepare them so they can succeed. It is educations #1 priority. Therefor I do not believe there is any problem engraving in students that the paths they chose in education will determine where they go to college, what career they will pursue, what their income will be and thus what their lives will be like. I would imagine if my friends had a crystal ball when they were 18 they might have chose a different path - rather than going back to school in their mid-40’s so they could get a job.
So in education we do have to do it all. We have to prepare, citizens, human beings and workers. It is a tall order and that is why it takes special people to be educators.
I recommend checking out the following resources.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to read your perspective on the three goals of education and your focus on the idea of social efficiency. When I was reading the article I didn’t pay as much attention to the idea of social efficiency because I thought it was very regimented and outdated. I’m 27, but I have heard about the “three track system” of the past. The Director of Assessment and Grants of my district told us that had one of her teachers not steered her in a different direction, she would have been placed on the “secretary” track instead of becoming a teacher and later, holding the position she has now. She stressed that it was because of passionate teachers that children feel more connected and comfortable with continuing education and secure their future.
Reading your post gave me a new idea about the U.S. educational system. Would you consider “social efficiency” of the 21st century to be related to magnet schools, International Baccalaureate schools, or other (for lack of a better term) “special interest” schools? Our county has Oakland Schools Technical Campus where, (from my understanding) students who wish to follow a specific career path can start taking classes in high school to see if it’s a path they wish to take and then if they do, have the ability to continue taking classes specific to that career, post high school. A sister of a former student of mine wanted to be a chef so she was able to start classes her junior year of high school.
My husband used to live in Germany and he’s told me that in Germany, fourth grade students take a proficiency test. Based on how they score and their elementary grades, are placed on a track. The highest track (Gymnasium) leads to eight or nine more years of schooling and a “gateway test” (Abitur) into university. The next track (Realschule) leads to a skilled profession after several years of schooling (like a nurse, higher business, etc.). The final track (Hauptschule) lasts five years and prepares students for vocational training. What do you think about this system?
Hi Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI am in total agreement that the purpose of schools should revolve around the social efficiency model to create the “right” type of workers for today’s jobs. At my school we have went through a similar process with developing a positive behavior management system which puts more accountability on students and focuses on following the principles of respect, responsibility, safety, and being responsive. One aspect you referred to was more one parent homes compared to decades ago. We also teach our students the behaviors we want because they are not modeled at home. For the past two years we focused so much on the students and teaching them how to act, but when they went home or even upon pickup we were able to see a change in their attitude because of the expectations and attitudes of their parents. I do not feel that one parent homes versus a two parent homes necessarily dictates whether or not a student knows how to show respect, but rather that some of those single parents do not have the skills that we are trying to teach their kids. The area where I grew up had a significant divorce rate and there was not nearly the severity of disrespect that I see now. I taught in the district I grew up in and a neighboring district for two years and the parents themselves showed respect and did not belittle the education system we had in place for their children. Where I teach now, we had to develop a program and a plan to teach the parents what we are teaching the students. We have a lot of contact opportunities with parents because we do not have busing which many times leads to high parent engagement in our school programs. They are realizing that they are becoming better people by further teaching our expectations at home and developing the skills as they reinforce the positive behaviors at home.
Brian Jensen
Hello, Melissa.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I know it is not the bulk of your response to our readings, I'd like to address your comments on teaching students to be good citizens.
Our school counselor implemented a school-wide positive behavior plan for this school year as well. In conversations with her prior to the start of the school year, we talked about how we always tell our students, "Don't..." We always say, "Don't..." Most of our redirections begin with, "Don't..." She talked about how we're telling them, "Don't...," but we're not telling them, or showing them, what it is the CAN do. And apparently, many of them are not being taught what they CAN or SHOULD do at home. We are a new campus and for the past two years, we have used "Words of Wisdom" during our morning announcements as character education. Last year we added on the Kids for Character pledge after the pledges. Our discipline referrals to the office were still through the roof. But it seems that this year, having taken a few hours out of the second day of the school year to review classroom, hallway, restroom, library, etc., expectations and teaching them "The Longhorn Way," which is to be Respectful, Responsible, and Safe, really made a difference. In my own classroom, I reviewed the expectations daily the first week of school, and twice the following two weeks. I will repeat them periodically as the school year goes on, and ideally, before it becomes "necessary" to review them.
I chose this because although character and basic good manners should be taught at home, it turns out that we spend a lot of time each year either pulling students aside to counsel them on appropriate behavior or sending them to the office with a counselor or discipline referral. This past week we actually got a shout out from our principal during morning announcements and a faculty meeting about how school-wide discipline has improved immensely. I'm hoping that deliberately modeling and/or teaching our expectations will curtail the day-to-day interruption of instruction and allow us to focus on the real purpose of schooling...an education.
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1017641_455831237848107_1415858071_n.jpg
It's in Spanish, but I hope you get the gist.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts. I wonder, if you advocate for the social efficiency model of education if you believe that corporations should have a hand in deciding what curriculum is taught? It seems to follow from your position that should be the case. I'm also curious to learn your thoughts on how students would proceed through the system if it is the case that schools should educate children in order to fill jobs currently available. In the example you provided of your friends, it seems to me that they did exactly the right thing, according to the social efficiency model. At the time, there were a lot of factory jobs that paid well and had decent benefits. They didn't want to go to school so...they did what they needed to do to get a good job that made sense for their lives. However, the capriciousness of job markets and globalization eliminated their category of jobs from the "social efficiency slots" available and they were not trained to occupy another position in the system. This, I think, is a counterargument for the benefits of social efficiency. It is based entirely upon the demands of the free market system which can change in the blink of an eye. If a person has been trained to occupy a particular "rung" in this system and the rung is pulled out, the consequences are dramatic for that individual. Is there a way to modify social efficiency to provide a better safety net in these situations? I wonder...
Best,
amanda
I continue to maintain that my position is that the purpose of education can not be one thing. The purpose of education can not possibly be one thing or the other. If we are truly doing our job as educators then we have to produce citizens, human beings and workers. I also firmly don't believe there is anything wrong with pushing students to climb the so called "social ladder". We need to push students to strive for better paying jobs that require college education and beyond. We need to push them to want to go to college and get the education that can open more doors for them. There is not a future for those who don't go to college or at least get a trade school education in a specialty. I don't believe that one purpose is more important than the other, they are all equally important and for education to be successful it must serve more than one purpose. And while my statement about single parent homes might have been a little stereotypical I was just trying to make a point. Kids today due need character education at school as they are not coming with it from home, whether it is a single parent home or two parents. That is the purpose of many programs like Character Counts and PBIS.
ReplyDelete