I'm not actually going to write about that question - stay tuned for my paper next Wednesday - but it's a really, REALLY important question to think about. The topic if "religion in schools" is so big, multi-faceted, controversial, unclear, historical, cultural, emotionally-charged, etc. that it's difficult to know where to begin... (Note: if we could define "religion," we wouldn't have so much trouble trying to "separate" it from school).
A couple of brief thoughts regarding some of the material we've discussed in class:
1.) The regards to the "religion" survey Jim handed out on Monday: I'm not quite sure what word I'd use to describe this survey other than with the word, "ridiculous." ("Subjective" doesn't really even do the job - needs more weight). Fortunately, Jim didn't actually want us to fill it out, only to use it as a discussion, so here we go...
* First of all, please note the lovely picture of a cross and flowers to the right of the words, "Survey on Religion." Does it get any more subjective/biased than that?
* Second, since when can something as controversial as "religion" (especially when we struggle even to define the word) be summed up in a series of "drop down menus?" It's not only a joke, but an insult to humanity if you ask me
* My personal favorite: the second to last question on the first side, "Do you believe that ONLY your religion's beliefs are RIGHT?" Ok, so really, who is going to answer "yes" to that question without feeling like a closed-minded, right-wing extremist? What does this question even mean? People choose what they want to believe, and they choose to believe what they think is true. People do not choose to believe in things they think are false, it just doesn't make sense. This doesn't mean that every person is right, as far as absolute truth is concerned, because we all have limited knowledge and limited means through which we can access truth. Two people that hold opposing opinions cannot both be right, (in the grand scheme of truth), however, each person must believe his own opinion to be true (or a least, more true than false); it is logically impossible to believe something that you know is false, because then you wouldn't be able to believe it in the first place. Ok, ok, I'm done.
Wrap-up: "Religion," (whatever it is) cannot be summed up in a "drop-down menu survey." I believe that surface-level, "in-the-box"-type classifications of complex issues such as this do more harm than good.
2.) Creationism vs. Evolution. I admit, there was a time when I would have been willing to "stand up against evolution," but as I have come to realize, these terms are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and "The Big Bang" do not prove that God does not exist, or that God did not, in fact, create the universe. Science cannot prove or disprove God; God is outside of the realm of the "measurable." To argue against evolution (in thinking that it disproves God) only limits God's power and authority. Who are we to say what God can and cannot do?
Because God is an abstract concept, we cannot know God by simply "knowing" God. That is why God created the world and all that is in it: so that we could know God. Biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, music, history; the list goes on and on. This is how we can know God: through living our lives, humbly seeking the truth that we know we will never fully grasp (in this life), but knowing that to give up seeking this truth is to give up on life. Evolution does not disprove God, but gives us a glimpse of who God is. (Of course, evolution might be false, but so might a lot of things we think are true. In the words of my grandpa, spoken with a thick, Italian accent, "Whada ya gonna do?")
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Kind of a downer....
What do you do with a student who just doesn't care? What do you do when you've tried many different approaches to get her interested in some aspect of your subject and she still just doesn't care? The student doesn't want to be in school (or your class, at least) and the only reason she is there is because her parents (or the compulsory schooling law) are forcing the student to be there. What do you do when you've talked with the student and asked her what you can do to help her learn better, or what opportunities she would be excited about pursuing that pertain to your subject, and she is still unresponsive? How do you communicate to this student that you care about her and want her to be successful, within the confines of school policy (especially when teacher-student relationships outside of school may appear to be crossing boundaries - ie. It would not necessarily be appropriate for you to take this student out for lunch over the weekend to get to know her better or to show that you care)? What do you do when this student is failing your class because she is choosing to do so, despite the efforts you have made to reach out to her?
Are we sometimes arrogant (despite our best intetions) in thinking that we, as dedicated educators, have the power to motivate those who choose not to be motivated (or whose life experiences have inhibited intrinsic motivation)? Do we really have any power to motivate at all? (This gets into issues of determinism vs. free will, and because I have another Paideia paper to write, I will stop here). Do we simply "do the best we can" and hope for miracles? Powerlessness doesn't feel too good for anyone...
Are we sometimes arrogant (despite our best intetions) in thinking that we, as dedicated educators, have the power to motivate those who choose not to be motivated (or whose life experiences have inhibited intrinsic motivation)? Do we really have any power to motivate at all? (This gets into issues of determinism vs. free will, and because I have another Paideia paper to write, I will stop here). Do we simply "do the best we can" and hope for miracles? Powerlessness doesn't feel too good for anyone...
Monday, March 15, 2010
Down to Business!
Check out this NY Times article on re-defining "recess" in schools...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/education/15recess.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education
Finally, a movement toward standardizing recess across the United States! It's about time. Kids don't need more choice or opportunities to do what they think is best for themselves - if anything, kids need more rules to follow: a manual for living productive, globally competitive, and therefore, satisfactory lives. We need to start tracking the progress of U.S. students in recess compared to students around the world. It's time to start bridging the global achievement gap in this area. We need standardization. We need rules. We need rigor. We need accountability for recess teachers. I'd even go a step beyond this article and suggest that we develop a standardized form of assessment for all students in recess. It's time to tighten the slack: no more monkey business!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/education/15recess.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education
Finally, a movement toward standardizing recess across the United States! It's about time. Kids don't need more choice or opportunities to do what they think is best for themselves - if anything, kids need more rules to follow: a manual for living productive, globally competitive, and therefore, satisfactory lives. We need to start tracking the progress of U.S. students in recess compared to students around the world. It's time to start bridging the global achievement gap in this area. We need standardization. We need rules. We need rigor. We need accountability for recess teachers. I'd even go a step beyond this article and suggest that we develop a standardized form of assessment for all students in recess. It's time to tighten the slack: no more monkey business!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Do Schools Have Too Much Responsibility?
So, do schools have too much responsibility? I plan to explore this topic in greater depth in future papers/blogs, but for now I've got to focus on the questions, because there are so many! I think about these questions in light of my personal belief that education is not only a privilege, but an individual responsibility. This sounds like something a belief most educators, politicians, U.S. citizens, etc. would ascribe to, but does the current state of education in the U.S. actually reflect this philosophy?
1.) Should schools only be responsible for teaching/"facilitating" (we love this word in education) academic learning? If so, what is "academic?" Is it possible to completely dichotomize that which is "academic" from that which is not? If not, is it worth trying to do to any extent?
2.) Is there any value in school-sanctioned, extra-curricular activities? Should there be a connection between academic and extra-curricular activities? (i.e. in principle, should a football player who fails math be kicked off the football team?)
3.) Do schools have too much responsibility in disciplining students? If a student fails to follow school policy (or even an individual teacher's policy, for that matter) should schools "put up with" this? Should teachers be baby-sitters, by nature, because they are not allowed to send misbehaving students out of their classrooms?
4.) Is it the school's responsibility to ensure compulsory education? (i.e. should schools have attendance policies stating that x amount absences = failing a class?)
5.) As it exists now, is school essentially the United States' main form of juvenile government? Should it be?
6.) Should traditions such as prom, homecoming, school dances, pep fests, etc. be facilitated by schools and school faculty? Is it the responsibility of U.S. schools to control such events?
7.) Where does parental responsibility play in? Individual responsibility of children? Do we live in a country that treats children under 18 wholly un-responsible for their own actions?
8.) So much of both education and schooling in the U.S. are steeped in tradition and symbolism. How do we pay tribute to these aspects of our own culture while continuing to move forward, make changes, and seek to do what is best for children in U.S. schools (Presuming that the success of children in education is more important than maintaining cultural tradition/symbolism)?
1.) Should schools only be responsible for teaching/"facilitating" (we love this word in education) academic learning? If so, what is "academic?" Is it possible to completely dichotomize that which is "academic" from that which is not? If not, is it worth trying to do to any extent?
2.) Is there any value in school-sanctioned, extra-curricular activities? Should there be a connection between academic and extra-curricular activities? (i.e. in principle, should a football player who fails math be kicked off the football team?)
3.) Do schools have too much responsibility in disciplining students? If a student fails to follow school policy (or even an individual teacher's policy, for that matter) should schools "put up with" this? Should teachers be baby-sitters, by nature, because they are not allowed to send misbehaving students out of their classrooms?
4.) Is it the school's responsibility to ensure compulsory education? (i.e. should schools have attendance policies stating that x amount absences = failing a class?)
5.) As it exists now, is school essentially the United States' main form of juvenile government? Should it be?
6.) Should traditions such as prom, homecoming, school dances, pep fests, etc. be facilitated by schools and school faculty? Is it the responsibility of U.S. schools to control such events?
7.) Where does parental responsibility play in? Individual responsibility of children? Do we live in a country that treats children under 18 wholly un-responsible for their own actions?
8.) So much of both education and schooling in the U.S. are steeped in tradition and symbolism. How do we pay tribute to these aspects of our own culture while continuing to move forward, make changes, and seek to do what is best for children in U.S. schools (Presuming that the success of children in education is more important than maintaining cultural tradition/symbolism)?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Back to Basics Part II
I was pleased to read this NY Times article, as it represents, in my opinion, a glimmer of hope for education in the United States in regards to the subject of my previous post.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/education/01schools.html?ref=education
While the article does not discuss the logistics of putting these individualized education plans into practice, I am grateful for the effort these New Jersey schools are making to allow students to take personal responsibility for their own education. These individualized education plans for all students seem, to me, to be a step in the right direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/education/01schools.html?ref=education
While the article does not discuss the logistics of putting these individualized education plans into practice, I am grateful for the effort these New Jersey schools are making to allow students to take personal responsibility for their own education. These individualized education plans for all students seem, to me, to be a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
"Back to Basics"
Everyone is talking about going "back to basics" in education: math, science, reading, maybe a little history, etc. In lectures we've established the fact that in order to even talk about "back to basics," we need to define what "basics" really means. The issue of "who get's to decide" what "basics" means is an even greater issue. Regardless of my own opinion of what the "basics" of education are, Arne Duncan is probably not going to be calling me up anytime soon to ask me about my personal stance on this issue. However, as a voting citizen in an "individualistic society," I do believe my opinion matters to an extent...
Ok, so what are the basics of education? Ultimately, each high school sets standards that each student must meet in order to receive a GED. At my high school, these consisted of something like 4 years of English, 2 science courses, math up to the level of Algebra 3 with Trigonometry, 4 years of social studies/history (which were largely a repetition of middle school social studies), 2 years of a language, 1 semester of gym, health, music, etc. Essentially, these are the classes that my high school defined as "the basics."
While I realize that my own high school experience is only one case study, its graduation requirements are pretty average compared most U.S. high schools. In my opinion, the "basics" of education should be generally defined as "that which is useful to a human being on a regular basis." According to this definition, my high school's standards were ridiculously high. Take math for example: how much math do most people use on a regular basis? Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (probably with a calculator most of the time), some occasional geometry when constructing something, and perhaps even some basic, proportional algebra in cooking (these are just examples, I'm sure others can think of more). I would think these would generally be "master-able" by most people by the end of middle school. Beyond this level of what I would consider "basic" math, I think it is impractical to require all students to continue studying math. The opposing argument is, of course, that students need to learn beyond basics in mathematics because some day when they get jobs, they might need to use these higher level math skills. Perhaps this is true, but here's a newsflash: most students don't even retain these higher level math skills anyway! I took calculus 1 and 2 in high school and I remember almost nothing - in fact, I probably learned more about discipline than I actually learned about calculus that year.
So why are we spending so much time trying to educate students about things they "might possibly need to know" in their futures, instead of teaching them what they need to know right now in life? If, as Jim said, 95% of what current kindergarteners will need to know when they get to the work force hasn't even been invented yet, then what are we accomplishing in education right now? What if students were given a well-rounded, practical, foundational education covering "the basics" that human beings need to know to be able to function in society, and then were allowed to pursue subject matter of interest to them?
What would this look like? I propose something like this: students go to school to learn the "basics," until age 14 or so (or until they can demonstrate mastery of these "basics"). Then, students would be basically be given free reign to pursue their own academic interests. Schooling would still be compulsory, but students would have four years to take whatever classes were of interest to them. This would also include long-term internships, frequent job-shadowing, research opportunities, and even studying abroad. In this system, the students that are interested in mathematics (who will, of course, most likely pursue a career that employs their math skills) could take all of the math courses they wanted and the students who are not interested in math (and who would not, most likely, retain the information from a higher level math course) could pursue other areas of interest in which they could engage in meaningful learning. What if students were able to "get a better feel" for their academic interests and career pursuits in high school instead of college? I think most university "Major of the Month" clubs would greatly diminish.
What would it be like if we gave students opportunities to explore their interests completely divorced from the pressures of college preparation? To me, this is the essence of education, yet in most of education, we're sucking this curiosity and joy out of learning for kids...one test at a time.
As we reflected on this issue today, a member of my discussion group commented that although a system such as this might be a good idea in theory, in actuality, most students would not be able to handle this freedom and independence in their learning. As our education system stands today, this is certainly true. As ironic as it is, this country we live in that is founded on principles of independence and freedom certainly does not educate its students in such a manner. We continually spoon-feed our students mouthfuls of information, then give them barfbags in the form of tests and tell them to start regurgitating (I realize this image is disgusting, but it illustrates my point).
Certainly before a systemic change, such as the one I propose, would be able to be put into action, we'd have to start teaching our students to be independent thinkers. Independence is not just something some people are born with and others or not - it must be cultivated in children from an early age.
And believe it or not, our country is actually starting to transition, in small ways, toward the type of schooling I am advocating for. Just the other day, I read an article in the New York Times about 8 different states that have decided (for next year) to let high school sophomores graduate at the end of the year and get a two-year jump start on college - provided that they pass a series of "basic skills" tests. Many will make the case that 16 year-olds are not emotionally ready for college, and personally, I am not advocating for this either (although I probably would have chosen this track, had it been made available to me when I was in high school). However, this issue illustrates the movement of our society to re-defining high school. AP, IB, and post secondary classes, as well as this new concept of completing high school in 10th grade illustrate the trend that a significant portion of high school students in the U.S. are not satisfied with the traditional, high school education they are currently receiving. These movements tell me that students want to explore more options and to hone in on mastering the skills they see as important for their futures.
So what is really going on in education today? Why do we, as educators, principals, superintendents, curriculum-writers, standardized test-writers, and politicians think we know what is best for each child to the extent that for 12 years of every high school graduate's life, we pump them full of information that is going to be either forgotten or obsolete later in life? Are we trying to foster a lack of independence in students? Even if the essence of education is to prepare our students for global competitiveness (which I do not believe it is), how can people think that building math and science robots out of our students is even going to solve global competition?
Students (especially in high schools) are responding to the need for systemic restructuring in education by taking classes that give them college credit, and even through pursuing early graduation. These students aren't stupid, and they're telling us to "cut the crap." It's time to let education happen in schools.
Ok, so what are the basics of education? Ultimately, each high school sets standards that each student must meet in order to receive a GED. At my high school, these consisted of something like 4 years of English, 2 science courses, math up to the level of Algebra 3 with Trigonometry, 4 years of social studies/history (which were largely a repetition of middle school social studies), 2 years of a language, 1 semester of gym, health, music, etc. Essentially, these are the classes that my high school defined as "the basics."
While I realize that my own high school experience is only one case study, its graduation requirements are pretty average compared most U.S. high schools. In my opinion, the "basics" of education should be generally defined as "that which is useful to a human being on a regular basis." According to this definition, my high school's standards were ridiculously high. Take math for example: how much math do most people use on a regular basis? Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (probably with a calculator most of the time), some occasional geometry when constructing something, and perhaps even some basic, proportional algebra in cooking (these are just examples, I'm sure others can think of more). I would think these would generally be "master-able" by most people by the end of middle school. Beyond this level of what I would consider "basic" math, I think it is impractical to require all students to continue studying math. The opposing argument is, of course, that students need to learn beyond basics in mathematics because some day when they get jobs, they might need to use these higher level math skills. Perhaps this is true, but here's a newsflash: most students don't even retain these higher level math skills anyway! I took calculus 1 and 2 in high school and I remember almost nothing - in fact, I probably learned more about discipline than I actually learned about calculus that year.
So why are we spending so much time trying to educate students about things they "might possibly need to know" in their futures, instead of teaching them what they need to know right now in life? If, as Jim said, 95% of what current kindergarteners will need to know when they get to the work force hasn't even been invented yet, then what are we accomplishing in education right now? What if students were given a well-rounded, practical, foundational education covering "the basics" that human beings need to know to be able to function in society, and then were allowed to pursue subject matter of interest to them?
What would this look like? I propose something like this: students go to school to learn the "basics," until age 14 or so (or until they can demonstrate mastery of these "basics"). Then, students would be basically be given free reign to pursue their own academic interests. Schooling would still be compulsory, but students would have four years to take whatever classes were of interest to them. This would also include long-term internships, frequent job-shadowing, research opportunities, and even studying abroad. In this system, the students that are interested in mathematics (who will, of course, most likely pursue a career that employs their math skills) could take all of the math courses they wanted and the students who are not interested in math (and who would not, most likely, retain the information from a higher level math course) could pursue other areas of interest in which they could engage in meaningful learning. What if students were able to "get a better feel" for their academic interests and career pursuits in high school instead of college? I think most university "Major of the Month" clubs would greatly diminish.
What would it be like if we gave students opportunities to explore their interests completely divorced from the pressures of college preparation? To me, this is the essence of education, yet in most of education, we're sucking this curiosity and joy out of learning for kids...one test at a time.
As we reflected on this issue today, a member of my discussion group commented that although a system such as this might be a good idea in theory, in actuality, most students would not be able to handle this freedom and independence in their learning. As our education system stands today, this is certainly true. As ironic as it is, this country we live in that is founded on principles of independence and freedom certainly does not educate its students in such a manner. We continually spoon-feed our students mouthfuls of information, then give them barfbags in the form of tests and tell them to start regurgitating (I realize this image is disgusting, but it illustrates my point).
Certainly before a systemic change, such as the one I propose, would be able to be put into action, we'd have to start teaching our students to be independent thinkers. Independence is not just something some people are born with and others or not - it must be cultivated in children from an early age.
And believe it or not, our country is actually starting to transition, in small ways, toward the type of schooling I am advocating for. Just the other day, I read an article in the New York Times about 8 different states that have decided (for next year) to let high school sophomores graduate at the end of the year and get a two-year jump start on college - provided that they pass a series of "basic skills" tests. Many will make the case that 16 year-olds are not emotionally ready for college, and personally, I am not advocating for this either (although I probably would have chosen this track, had it been made available to me when I was in high school). However, this issue illustrates the movement of our society to re-defining high school. AP, IB, and post secondary classes, as well as this new concept of completing high school in 10th grade illustrate the trend that a significant portion of high school students in the U.S. are not satisfied with the traditional, high school education they are currently receiving. These movements tell me that students want to explore more options and to hone in on mastering the skills they see as important for their futures.
So what is really going on in education today? Why do we, as educators, principals, superintendents, curriculum-writers, standardized test-writers, and politicians think we know what is best for each child to the extent that for 12 years of every high school graduate's life, we pump them full of information that is going to be either forgotten or obsolete later in life? Are we trying to foster a lack of independence in students? Even if the essence of education is to prepare our students for global competitiveness (which I do not believe it is), how can people think that building math and science robots out of our students is even going to solve global competition?
Students (especially in high schools) are responding to the need for systemic restructuring in education by taking classes that give them college credit, and even through pursuing early graduation. These students aren't stupid, and they're telling us to "cut the crap." It's time to let education happen in schools.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
"The Liberal Arts Education"
Ok, so a "Liberal Arts" education looks good on a job resume. Great. So who cares? What does it even mean? Are these just flowery words that represent the illusion of choice? What does it mean to be "well-rounded" and why does it matter? I am a product of a "Liberal Arts Education," and am paying about 4 years of my beginning teacher's salary to be here, so it's gotta be something great, right?
The philosophy behind the "Liberal Arts Education. Bottom line, cliche phrase: we want (because Luther wants, because employers want, because society demands) us to be "well-rounded" citizens. What does well-rounded mean? Here are some definitions I found from the all-knowing source called 'the internet.'
1. rounded in shape or well developed a well-rounded figure
2. full, varied, and satisfying a well-rounded life
3. well planned and balanced a well-rounded program
Well, it looks like the U.S. has got number one under control!
No, but really, I'm going to cut the crap now. To a certain extent, I think most people strive to be somewhat "well-rounded," or "balanced" in life, just as I believe all humans strive to be educated. Being well-rounded (skilled in different areas of life) is not only useful and practical, but adds to the meaning we each find in life. We all have different inclinations toward "creativity," in different areas of life and gain satisfaction from pursuing our interests.
The Liberal Arts Mission Statement of Luther College:
As a liberal arts college, Luther is committed to a way of learning that moves us beyond immediate interests and present knowledge into a larger world—an education that disciplines minds and develops whole persons equipped to understand and confront a changing society.
Sounds great in theory, right? I seriously wonder, though, if this is even possible, or at least, in the place of Luther College to try and accomplish.
Life is about choice - in the end, we're always going to be held accountable for our decisions. So is "well-roundedness" something that can be taught, much less forced? On a superficial level, yes. Through different forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e. a diploma), Luther is able to force students to complete enough classes to make it look like they are well-rounded, diversely-minded citizens. But does this really mean anything? Does this really mean that students from Luther College are going to graduate with a greater knowledge/appreciation for diversity in this world? In my opinion, of course not. Learning is a choice. And to me, this forced "liberal arts" education is only an illusion of choice.
Perhaps the perspective of Music Education folks is a little different on this topic, since we are essentially double majors (whose education minors are bigger than our music majors) and almost every class we take within our major and minor requirements satisfy our general education requirements. I'm not complaining because if this were not so, I would be in college for 6 years! I can count on one hand, however, the number of classes I have taken by choice in college - partial choice, really, since the choice I make is guided by a particular category of study (i.e. I chose to take Islam to satisfy my religion requirement).
This is all part of the liberal arts education philosophy: we are required to show our well-roundedness by satisfying different requirements - we just keep checking them all off our lists until we graduate. Is this REALLY what it means to be a well-rounded individual, if indeed that is our inclination and goal as humans?
Truly Well-Rounded, or just an illusion?
Just as I believe a teacher's job is not to fill a child's head with knowledge but to provide opportunities to facilitate learning, I believe the job of an institute of higher education, such as Luther College, is not to force students to be well-rounded, but to provide opportunities for students to choose well-roundedness, because I believe that choice is the key to true learning.
What if we didn't have general education requirements? What if major and minor requirements were kept to a bare minimum and students were required to take X number of classes or credits throughout their college career but basically had free license to choose to take whatever classes interested them? I argue that well-roundedness would happen more naturally and in more meaningful ways because it would evolve from choice.
Of course, I realize that this is very philosophical and hypothetical, and I know how the counter-arguments go: Where would the continuity be? What if some students took all of their classes in the same area of study? What would happen to Luther's reputation? What if some students took lots of different classes that didn't translate into any one particular major or area of study? Wouldn't Luther be cheating students out of security in the job market after college?
The bottom line is that education is a choice that all students must take responsibility for. And, it's a tug of war between freedom and structure. Luther wouldn't like the idea that it doesn't have control over the education of its students, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that it doesn't right now, and it never has!
Luther truly is a place of opportunity, and for this I am grateful. There are so many great opportunities to take advantage of at any given moment, it would be impossible to take advantage of them all even if we didn't have to go to class. This is good. But irony of this all is that, for me at least, there isn't time to take advantage of even some of these opportunities, even if I wanted to because of all that I am required to do in College. For example, I would have loved to have gone to the lecture on nutrition the other night - but because of the schedule I hold, the few precious hours I have when I get back to my apartment at night MUST be devoted to homework, or I would fail my classes. End of story.
Because this blog has already gotten ridiculously long, I will end shortly. Here's my point: I am a firm believer in the idea that humans should be well-rounded individuals and that this contributes positively to "the greater good of society," to put it in cliche terms. Personally, "well-roundedness" is something I strive for in life, and I will be the first to say that the most interesting, meaningful, worthwhile classes that I have taken at Luther have been non-music classes. But I can honestly say that this is not because Luther required me to have these experiences. In all honesty, (and I say this with no animosity, truly) the Luther College Liberal Arts Education system has done more to inhibit than support my own well-rounded pursuits in life because of the ridiculously busy schedule it has forced me to keep.
I believe that Luther College's Liberal Arts program is well-intentioned, but fails to accomplish putting its core value ("well-roundedness") into practice. We're all control freaks in some ways - its part of our nature as humans in response to an imperfect world. But times come when we need to let go. I believe that it is time for Luther and other "liberal arts" colleges to let go of the notion that extensive requirements in all subject matter will ever cause a person to become a well-rounded contributor to society; more importantly, to let go of the idea that a well-rounded person can be "created" by any other means than through personal choice. It's time to let students take responsibility for their own educational decisions in college. Of course, in doing this, they'll run the risk that students might actually learn something!
The philosophy behind the "Liberal Arts Education. Bottom line, cliche phrase: we want (because Luther wants, because employers want, because society demands) us to be "well-rounded" citizens. What does well-rounded mean? Here are some definitions I found from the all-knowing source called 'the internet.'
1. rounded in shape or well developed a well-rounded figure
2. full, varied, and satisfying a well-rounded life
3. well planned and balanced a well-rounded program
Well, it looks like the U.S. has got number one under control!
No, but really, I'm going to cut the crap now. To a certain extent, I think most people strive to be somewhat "well-rounded," or "balanced" in life, just as I believe all humans strive to be educated. Being well-rounded (skilled in different areas of life) is not only useful and practical, but adds to the meaning we each find in life. We all have different inclinations toward "creativity," in different areas of life and gain satisfaction from pursuing our interests.
The Liberal Arts Mission Statement of Luther College:
As a liberal arts college, Luther is committed to a way of learning that moves us beyond immediate interests and present knowledge into a larger world—an education that disciplines minds and develops whole persons equipped to understand and confront a changing society.
Sounds great in theory, right? I seriously wonder, though, if this is even possible, or at least, in the place of Luther College to try and accomplish.
Life is about choice - in the end, we're always going to be held accountable for our decisions. So is "well-roundedness" something that can be taught, much less forced? On a superficial level, yes. Through different forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e. a diploma), Luther is able to force students to complete enough classes to make it look like they are well-rounded, diversely-minded citizens. But does this really mean anything? Does this really mean that students from Luther College are going to graduate with a greater knowledge/appreciation for diversity in this world? In my opinion, of course not. Learning is a choice. And to me, this forced "liberal arts" education is only an illusion of choice.
Perhaps the perspective of Music Education folks is a little different on this topic, since we are essentially double majors (whose education minors are bigger than our music majors) and almost every class we take within our major and minor requirements satisfy our general education requirements. I'm not complaining because if this were not so, I would be in college for 6 years! I can count on one hand, however, the number of classes I have taken by choice in college - partial choice, really, since the choice I make is guided by a particular category of study (i.e. I chose to take Islam to satisfy my religion requirement).
This is all part of the liberal arts education philosophy: we are required to show our well-roundedness by satisfying different requirements - we just keep checking them all off our lists until we graduate. Is this REALLY what it means to be a well-rounded individual, if indeed that is our inclination and goal as humans?
Truly Well-Rounded, or just an illusion?
Just as I believe a teacher's job is not to fill a child's head with knowledge but to provide opportunities to facilitate learning, I believe the job of an institute of higher education, such as Luther College, is not to force students to be well-rounded, but to provide opportunities for students to choose well-roundedness, because I believe that choice is the key to true learning.
What if we didn't have general education requirements? What if major and minor requirements were kept to a bare minimum and students were required to take X number of classes or credits throughout their college career but basically had free license to choose to take whatever classes interested them? I argue that well-roundedness would happen more naturally and in more meaningful ways because it would evolve from choice.
Of course, I realize that this is very philosophical and hypothetical, and I know how the counter-arguments go: Where would the continuity be? What if some students took all of their classes in the same area of study? What would happen to Luther's reputation? What if some students took lots of different classes that didn't translate into any one particular major or area of study? Wouldn't Luther be cheating students out of security in the job market after college?
The bottom line is that education is a choice that all students must take responsibility for. And, it's a tug of war between freedom and structure. Luther wouldn't like the idea that it doesn't have control over the education of its students, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that it doesn't right now, and it never has!
Luther truly is a place of opportunity, and for this I am grateful. There are so many great opportunities to take advantage of at any given moment, it would be impossible to take advantage of them all even if we didn't have to go to class. This is good. But irony of this all is that, for me at least, there isn't time to take advantage of even some of these opportunities, even if I wanted to because of all that I am required to do in College. For example, I would have loved to have gone to the lecture on nutrition the other night - but because of the schedule I hold, the few precious hours I have when I get back to my apartment at night MUST be devoted to homework, or I would fail my classes. End of story.
Because this blog has already gotten ridiculously long, I will end shortly. Here's my point: I am a firm believer in the idea that humans should be well-rounded individuals and that this contributes positively to "the greater good of society," to put it in cliche terms. Personally, "well-roundedness" is something I strive for in life, and I will be the first to say that the most interesting, meaningful, worthwhile classes that I have taken at Luther have been non-music classes. But I can honestly say that this is not because Luther required me to have these experiences. In all honesty, (and I say this with no animosity, truly) the Luther College Liberal Arts Education system has done more to inhibit than support my own well-rounded pursuits in life because of the ridiculously busy schedule it has forced me to keep.
I believe that Luther College's Liberal Arts program is well-intentioned, but fails to accomplish putting its core value ("well-roundedness") into practice. We're all control freaks in some ways - its part of our nature as humans in response to an imperfect world. But times come when we need to let go. I believe that it is time for Luther and other "liberal arts" colleges to let go of the notion that extensive requirements in all subject matter will ever cause a person to become a well-rounded contributor to society; more importantly, to let go of the idea that a well-rounded person can be "created" by any other means than through personal choice. It's time to let students take responsibility for their own educational decisions in college. Of course, in doing this, they'll run the risk that students might actually learn something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
