Modern school curriculum is designed using the assumption of
the form of knowledge as set up in the categorization of disciplines in the
higher education system. The specification model takes precedence as the
organization principle in the higher education system. For the sake of
convenience and for the purpose of focus, knowledge is compartmentalized based
on what is considered belonging to the compartment. For example, the
study of physical living things is put under what is called as biology, whereas
the study of physical non-living things is put under what is called as
physics. Even within those categories there are myriad of divisions set
up in order to assist the focus. This setting up of divisions within each
category is done through the narrowing down of the scope of research in order
to figure out the simplest understanding of the complex knowledge.
Consequently, as each division goes deeper into the narrow scope, the coherence
of each category is compromised. To bring each division together would be
quite a challenge.
Let me illustrate it. In the
junior high biology lab, the teacher gives a task to figure out the inside of a
frog. So the students dissect the frog. As they cut the frog’s body
open, they find the internal organs of the frog. They find the heart, the
lung, the kidney, the liver, the intestines, and so on. Now, each
internal organ is complex in itself. Heart has its own function that
needs to be figured out. It also has its own mechanism. Liver also
has its own function that needs to be figured out. The same as heart,
liver also has its own mechanism. With all the internal organs figured
out in its own respective division, the teacher asks how all the internal
organs work together to get the frog alive and well. Here the problem
suddenly becomes extremely difficult.
In the same way, when we try to figure
out a machine. A machine has so many components that each has its own
function and mechanism. Putting them all together to get the machine
works well is way more difficult than to figure out each component’s function
and mechanism. Because here it is extremely important to know how each
component work and how they act and react when they are all put together.
Also they must be put in the right order for the purpose of making the machine
to work properly.
Now let us look into the education
enterprise. Knowledge is complex. Just like a machine. So it
is broken down into simpler divisions. There you have biology, physics,
history, math, chemistry, sociology, economy, art, music, and so on. The
question is then: “Are we to learn all of that knowledge
comprehensively?” We know that it would be impossible to do so. Not
only we are limited in our capacity to absorb and to understand them, but also our
time is limited. Even if we are given a thousand years we might not be
able to understand them comprehensively. So we resort to the most logical
problem solving that we know so dearly at this point, that is to reduce the
complexity of it by breaking it down. To break it down we can’t do it in
random. We need to prioritize. To set the priority means we
organize importance. We set values on each thing we consider to break
down.
Then we have the heavy discussion of
which division is more important than which. Is biology more important
than physics? Is music more important than math? Is chemistry more
important than art? How do we set it up? To complicate the matter,
educators attempt to figure out the use of knowledge in order to assist on the
priority. The most common valuation method is set up based on the
professional outcome as the students graduate from the formal education
domain. Say one would graduate as a doctor, the other as a lawyer, or as
a business people, etc. The priority is set based on what is assumed as
the most usable knowledge for each respective profession. A medical
doctor, for example, would need sufficient understanding of biology and
chemistry in order to fulfill their task as doctor. So in their course of
study, they got load of biology and chemistry in their program. A
mechanical engineer, on the other hand, would not need courses in biology or
chemistry, but instead they would need sufficient understanding of physics and
math so they would function well as a mechanical engineer.
Now, the problem in the education
enterprise is not yet solved by setting up the valuation like discussed
above. Because when we measure it according to the reality we stumble
upon yet our human limitation. Our human development proves to be quite
difficult to tackle. Most of us, when we grow up, we do not yet know what
profession we would like to take up for the rest of our life. Even a
twenty year old might not yet know what they want to do with their life.
How on earth are we to force a six year old to know? But then how can we
set up the curriculum for school age kids if the valuation method above can’t
solve this problem? But the assumption of the knowledge division has
become a huge contributing factor in curriculum design for primary and
secondary school. It is categorized much simpler in the younger
level. In grade 1, for example, students do not yet learn about chemistry
or biology or physics. Instead they got simple science. There is
another assumption at work in the design of curriculum here. Educators
are focusing on the developmental logic. We all start from the simplest
to the most complex. Babies do not right away learn how to run.
They must first learn to walk before even able to learn how to run. So
before we can learn advanced knowledge we must first learn the basic. So
this assumption intersects with the assumption of the knowledge division.
Since the knowledge division still takes precedence, the most common way to
design the curriculum is to trace the division to its simplest. So for
example, grade 1 math won’t study integral or differential. That would be
too complex to grade 1 students. Grade 1 students learn about
addition. Math experts consider addition as the basic of all math
equation and calculation. Without mastering it one would not be able to
do all the more complex equation and calculation. So after in
kindergarten students learn to recognize numbers, they are to learn the
relationship between numbers. And one of the most important relationships
between numbers is addition.
The developmental logic can’t stand
alone. It is very helpful in curriculum design. Jean Piaget’s
cognitive development theory has been used almost in every curriculum design up
to age 12. But that logic is based on the learner’s capacity. This
logic, however, doesn’t cover the knowledge itself. Learning must
consider the knowledge in itself. The sequencing of knowledge is not to
be taken lightly when appropriated to the learners’ development. The
logic of each knowledge division and the logic of knowledge as a whole are
vast, but since we are limited in the linear working of time, we must translate
knowledge into sequences of knowledge that will be understandable for the mind
of man that is built up in the restriction of time. In addition, the
sequences of knowledge are designed in such a way so that it won’t start with
the most advanced to the most basic. To determine which one is basic
which one is not is an area of debate in itself. Perhaps in math it is a
bit easier to determine because the mapping of the knowledge can be more
clearly seen. But with other social divisions we would find it harder to
sequence them. For example, which one is more important, the study of man
as a being or the study of the relationship between humans? We can’t
easily determine which precedes which.
What is more challenging is how to
integrate all the divisions of knowledge into one coherent whole. Like
how to connect math and sociology and biology and ethics for example. If
we persist on the assumption of knowledge divisions without any attempt to
integrate them, we would be used to the idea that knowledge is fragmented –
that there is no connection between math and ethics for example. In fact
this is the struggle we face today in the formal education sector. We are
in too deep in the knowledge divisions that the mathematician speaks a
different set of language and uses a different set of logic, so different than
many other knowledge divisions that it would be quite impossible for a
mathematician to discuss anything with a sociologist. The setup of the
specification in the professional level influences the logic of the curriculum
down to the primary school level. The assumption of the knowledge
divisions and professional specifications dominates the design of the
curriculum, and so consequently the students who go through the curriculum –
which serves as a programming tool for them – will end up enhancing the idea of
division and thus becoming professionals who can only tackle matters within
their respective specializations. To illustrate it further, for example,
a neurosurgeon would not dare to diagnose a patient who comes to his/her office
with a severe diarrhea problem. The neurosurgeon would quickly refer the
diarrhea patient to a gastrointestinal specialist. Even if the
neurosurgeon is the only doctor left in the universe, he/she would still
hesitate to diagnose the diarrhea patient. Such is the power of the knowledge
division.
Needless to say that it would be absurd
to come to a plumber to fix your broken bones except if the plumber is also a
doctor. On the one hand the specialization divides knowledge to the point
of degrading its integrity, but on the other hand we need experts who could
handle matters accurately. This dilemma is one that the education
paradigm finds difficult to deal with. Something is missing in our modern
curriculum. Knowledge integrity is always the problem every time we enter
into the discussion of education and particularly of curriculum design.
We struggle mightily to integrate the knowledge divisions into a coherent
whole. A part is missing since the start of the curriculum. The
assumption that governs the design ignores knowledge integrity. In that
struggle chaos is born. And in the chaos the more powerful wins over the
weak. Priority is given to the less abstract–more concrete knowledge
division. So math and science for example take precedence in the design
of curriculum as something that must exist. Given our limitation as
humans, restricted in space and time, some divisions would not be
prioritized. Art and music would only occupy the last slots in the
curriculum. Even to the point of scratching them off from the curriculum
altogether would not be a problem.
Howard Gardner protested the
discriminating assumptions of the traditional schooling, which only favors
math, logic, and linguistic skills. In his most famous book called
“Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” he proposed that
intelligence is actually multiple instead of only one. Then he elaborated
his findings in his extensive research about the many forms of
intelligence. His second book “Multiple Intelligences for the 21st
Century” discusses more intelligences that he found. Contrary to the
traditional view, Gardner
spoke of logical-mathematical intelligence, verbal-linguistic intelligence,
musical intelligence, spatial-visual intelligence, bodily kinesthetic
intelligence, inter-personal intelligence, intra-personal intelligence,
naturalist intelligence, and existential intelligence. And each person
has a different dominant intelligence. Therefore, in his protest, Gardner argued that
considering only logic-mathematic-linguistic as the standard of assessment for
all people is actually discriminating those who have other intelligences
dominant in their life. This discriminating assumption governs
traditional curriculum design and thus pressures unnecessarily people who are
stronger in musical intelligence or spatial intelligence, etc. In the end
traditional schooling reaps only logic-mathematic-linguistic people as the top
graduates, whereas anybody outside of that boundary would be sidelined to
second class or even third class. This assumption unfairly forces people
with less desired intelligences to fit their curriculum mold. It is like
forcing kids who are left handed to be right handed. It creates massive
disequilibrium in the growth of many kids as they enter school.
Gardner began finding the missing link that has haunted formal
education for ages. His findings explain a lot of the problems we are
having in the traditional curriculum. From a different viewpoint, Daniel
Goleman contributed to the discussion by finding that an emotional intelligence
or EQ (Emotional Quotient) is more important than IQ (Intelligence Quotient)
that is always assumed to be the rational domain of the human mind which is
always considered to be superior over emotion and will. This old assumption
is being challenged by Goleman. The old assumption can be traced back to
the Greek philosophy that considered reason to be more important than emotion
and will – reason is to be trained in such a way so as to control emotion and
will. Now, Goleman argued that EQ is the main determinant factor of
anyone’s success. He found that people with high IQ (low EQ) whom
graduated with high honors from traditional schools or colleges do not stand a
chance in the real world against people with high EQ (low IQ). Here
Goleman also found another missing part that has caused problems in the world
of education.
The traditional curriculum favors
people with high IQ (regardless of EQ) and promises success for them. But
the system collapses. When these graduates enter the workforce, they fail
miserably. The reason for their failure lies with their humanity not
being developed properly. And so they can’t communicate and relate well
with their colleagues or their bosses or even their clients and customers.
They also fail because they are so boxed in their comfort zone of their
respective knowledge division. In the real world they do not just deal
with issues within their respective discipline, but often they too must deal
with other issues that are known within other disciplines. When issues
outside of their comfort zone surfaces, they froze. All their training
becomes futile all of a sudden. Yet another reason that contributes to
their failure is that they often can’t truly channel their dominant intelligence
because it has been stifled since day one they enter elementary school.
And so they do not operate in their most potential, but instead their knowledge
and skill is the result of mechanistic behavioristic program that forces them
to master the minimum in order to fit in and graduate. For those who find
it comforting to work in the logic-mathematic-linguistic intelligence, they too
only focus on those three and never develop the other intelligences.
Their reliance on them creates an illusion that since they are always
successful in the sterile environment of school using those three, they would
also be successful in the real world using the same thing they use in
school. Little do they know that there is a great discrepancy between the
real world and school. These problems, when combined, become a very
powerful kryptonite that weakens even superman at his most powerful moment.
This kryptonite lies hidden in the
foundation of education. It weakens education participants
undetected. It even alters the entire society. For this reason Ivan
Illich protested in his most famous book “Deschooling Society.” The
entire system of society has been altered in such a way so as to conform to the
way formal education works – with all its assumptions including the assumption
of specialization of knowledge. And so, when parents send their kids to
school, it is for the expectation that their kids will one day, upon
graduation, hold the title as engineer or doctor or lawyer and the likes.
And as time goes by, the professions that the world “appreciates” the most
through the handsome package the holders receive are the ones sought out by the
parents. Since young, therefore, kids are indoctrinated to pursue such
materialistic goal. For people to get a good job, school diploma is
employed as the candidates’ tag whether they are desirable or not. As
this method is known to the commoners, they compete to get school
diploma. And as more people get school diploma, the competition becomes
fiercer. Holding a school diploma alone is no longer enough. One
needs a school diploma from a prestigious school. One also needs a school
diploma of a highly coveted profession from a prestigious school. An MD
diploma from John
Hopkins University
is very desirable. Much more desirable than many other medical schools in
the US
except Harvard and Stanford.
The entire society system is filled
with competition for the pursuit of material gain. Illich saw this
problem and he called to stop this decaying process. But a system this
massive has been going on for hundreds of years. It has permeated to
every corner of life. Consequently it would be almost impossible to
uproot it. The entire system will have to be changed. Illich’s call
is dismissed as being unrealistic. But even though the actual
“deschooling” of the society is unrealistic to do, his warning is true.
His keen eye found the disastrous impact formal education has made to the
fabric of humanity. But at this rate, nothing we can do to remedy it,
unless we completely halt everything. This is the battle of
paradigm. The commoners grow up thinking that if they get diploma, their
life will surely be better. To some degree yes, because the entire system
has been following such model. Society rewards the ones with the school
diploma. Only rarely some geniuses break through the system and make a
name for themselves. But they are very few. Out of 100 million
people, only one comes out that way. The rest runs within the
system. It is a system that binds people. Binding people for life.
Illich’s call is for the purpose of liberating the people from this bind.
This reality is something that we can’t
deny. A simple solution can’t be found. This is a project that will
require centuries to do. The practice of education as we know it today is
to be revised significantly if we are to optimize people’s gifts and
talents. Just to consider Goleman’s finding alone would dramatically
change the curriculum planning. Add it with Gardner’s finding and Illich’s warning, we
got our glass full to the brim.
Some bright educators speak of a
technical starting point that is very reasonable to consider, which is
assessment. If the assessment is tinkered with following the suggestions
and findings of Gardner, Goleman, and Illich, education as a whole might have
hope to change. If the assessment stays the same, there is no hope of
education to change. With our situation as it is right now, we might as
well tinker with assessment. Why assessment? The answer is simple,
it is because assessment is what people look at, be it to determine the value
of the education, the worth of the graduate, the success of the process, and so
on. Assessment is the first and last place people look at. The
weight of education usually is placed on its assessment. For example, if
the assessment of the graduates proves them to be below average, then their
destiny for job search is at risk. With the compartment dictates
students’ outcome, the “unfit” students will certainly be disadvantaged big
time. These “unfit” students are not the minority. If we follow Gardner’s findings, we
will soon realize that they are the majority. This alone shows how
education has betrayed its own purpose. The students’ full potential
cannot surface. Rather their potential is suppressed in order to fit in
the compartments. So, if the assessment of the graduates can be liberated
so as to assess each student’s true potential, the result would be quite
different. But there is no such system in place yet. And even if
there is an assessment system that would accommodate it, many institutions
would not wish to pick it up. The entire system is running already, and
according to many of them it runs very well. Pragmatism dictates that the
focus is on what works. The old model works. Why bother fixing
it? Remember the saying “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.” The
problem is that it is broken, but they just don’t see it.
This critique attacks the idea of
uniformity that has been employed for ages, which has forced students to
conform. This is depressing if seen through the eyes of educators.
Because for people like me we see a triangle being forced into a square box, or
a hexagon being forced into a trapezoid box. I see the gradual sedation
of the uniqueness of each person for the sake of knowledge organization that is
designed for the success of the industry. In the educational philosophy
classroom we always discuss about models of education. And one model
being critiqued very often is the factory model. In which each student is
being processed by school just like a material being processed in a
factory. This process is to mold students into the pattern of the
school. And the result is the production of the exact same
graduate. Just like when a Toyota
produces a Camry, every single Camry produced in the same year (the same
sub-model and type) will be exactly the same. This discussion remains a
discussion. The entire system is so massive that even until today it
still is run with the factory model in place. This is not an imaginary talk.
If you look at BF Skinner’s “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” you will see what I
mean. Behavioristic method of education is employed to make sure the
“product” of school is uniformly the same. Even the “product” of
education in general will be uniformly the same. In that case, our
educational system produces robots and not humans.
Now, this problem is our inheritance
from the past. Adding to the problem is that the passing-on-ritual
dictates that the current educational leaders find successors who think like
them. It is the tendency to maintain the status-quo. Whenever power
and control are involved, this route will always be the one very
appealing. And so the process of conformity happens also to those who are
to be bestowed all the power in their little kingdom. Someone completely
different may not succeed the current leader. Or otherwise it would be a
revolution. But revolution only happens, as we know it from history, when
misery or tyranny or oppression is rampant during the leader’s “reign.”
If the atmosphere is peace, then the “revolution” will be named
differently. It would be remembered as a “rebellion” instead.
Therefore change comes very slowly. The realization of a mistake may not
be responded quickly for fear of rattling the entire cage of the educational
system. But the good change is exactly what we must make, speedily and
not a second later. The impact of the curriculum problem that we have
today is staggering. There are many kids are left behind. Not
necessarily in their minimum basic knowledge and skill academically, but they
are left behind if we see it through the perspective of their very
potentials. The US
has had the motto “No Child Left Behind” since 2001. But the curriculum
of the educational system and the entire society has naturally forced many of
the kids to be left behind by leaving behind their God given talents and
potentials simply because the system can’t accommodate them. As Jean
Piaget’s explained that there are two principles of adaptation: 1) Accommodation,
and 2) Assimilation. Since the system is massive and very difficult to
change, the principle of accommodation for the system can’t work. What
works is only the principle of assimilation. Meaning that every student
entering the educational system must be assimilated to fit the system.
The system won’t accommodate every child’s uniqueness and potential. So
the children must adjust to the system, even at the expense of throwing away
their talents and potentials. If “No Child Left Behind” act is to be
executed with the child truly in mind, then we must not force the child to fit
our imperfect and limited mold. But instead, we must enhance our system
to accommodate the child. This is by no means an easy task. This is
extremely difficult. But this we must do. Or we risk leaving most
children behind. How are we going to give account to them and to humanity
as a whole?
I will leave this discussion here at
the moment. Let this serve as a reminder for all of us who really have
concern over education and the education of our children. An effort more
massive than the current system we have must be attempted. Not just an
effort, but a concerted effort that takes the entire nation, culture, and even
the world to work collaboratively together must be in place for a change for
good can be started.
No comments:
Post a Comment