Contemporary Debates in Childhood Education and Development

Sebastian Suggate, Elaine Reese

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136295669
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

• What are the risks and benefits of non-parental care for young children?

• 
  
  

• What are the short- and long-term effects of academically vs. play-focused environments for learning?

• 
  
  

• How and when should we teach reading?

• 
  
  

• What are the purposes of Education?

• What is the best way to teach mathematics to children, from preschool and beyond?

Contemporary Debates in Childhood Education and Development is a unique resource and reference work that brings together leading international researchers and thinkers, with divergent points of view, to discuss contemporary problems and questions in childhood education and developmental psychology. Through an innovative format whereby leading scholars each offer their own constructive take on the issue in hand, this book aims to inform readers of both sides of a variety of topics and in the process encourage constructive communication and fresh approaches.

Spanning a broad spectrum of issues, this book covers:

• 
  
  

• Phonic and whole language reading approaches

• 
  
  

• The developmental effect of non-parental childcare

• 
  
  

• The value of pre-school academic skill acquisition

• 
  
  

• The most effective methods of teaching mathematics

• 
  
  

• Standardized assessment – does it work?

• 
  
  

• The role of electronic media and technology

• 
  
  

• The pedagogical value of homework

• 
  
  

• The value of parents' reading to children.

This book combines breadth of vision with cutting edge research and is a 'must have' resource for researchers, students and policy makers in the fields of education and child development.

Part I

What are the purposes of education?

[T]he most general purpose of education is to help human beings find individual fulfilment and meaning in life … I would add that true meaning and fulfilment in life is surely not possible to find “outside reality” … So education must be “to reality”; this must be part of the ultimate and overriding purpose. That reality in our postmodern times is actually a contested concept (Anderson, 1992) does not take anything away from this obligation of the older to the younger generation. But it makes it a greater moral challenge than ever before.

Bo Dahlin

[E]arly childhood curriculum and teaching methods are best when they address children’s lively minds so that they have frequent opportunities to be fully intellectually engaged as well as to engage in spontaneous play, and not just cutting and pasting and producing “refrigerator art”.

Lilian Katz

Understanding means memorising. It is knowledge held in long-term memory that results in understanding and it is the same knowledge that in an appropriate form and under appropriate conditions results in the problem-solving skill exhibited by chess masters and anyone else who has acquired problem-solving skill … Long-term memory and its characteristics tend to be ignored or in many cases even derided by educationists insisting that its only function is to allow students to rote learn information. In fact, it is a central, possibly the central structure relevant to learning.

John Sweller

Chapter 1

The purpose of education – a “post-liberal” perspective

Bo Dahlin
Rudolf Steiner University College, Norway & Karlstad University, Sweden

Introduction

The question of the purpose of education has a long history among educational thinkers; on European grounds our literal tradition goes back at least to Plato and the ancient Greeks. However, it has been noted that writings about the aims of education are now less common than 2–3 decades ago. This has made it easier for utilitarian and purely instrumental conceptions of education to become commonplace (Standish, 2006). Standish even quotes a 1996 White Paper from the European Commission, Teaching and learning: towards the learning society, in which it is poignantly stated that the arguments about the aims of education are now finished: the purpose of education is simply to serve the economy. And that appears to be how many, even a majority of people, today actually think. Another reason for the lack of discussion of educational aims may be the one-sided focus on learning in present educational discourses, academic as well as non-academic (Biesta, 2010). The focus on learning itself and how to enhance it blinkers out the question of the ends of learning, of what is to be learnt and why.

My personal view is that the most general purpose of education is to help human beings find fulfilment and meaning in life. This view can of course be contested in many ways. It is nevertheless a rational and arguable point of view, which will be implicitly or explicitly present throughout this paper. I will begin by putting the question in a socio-political context, relating it to the issue of state versus state-independent schooling as well as to the social function of the educational system. Thereafter I will discuss the traditional liberal perspective on the purpose of education as illustrated by Winch and Gingell (2004) and what I consider to be a critical transformation of that view presented by Biesta (2010). I will end with a short discussion of the German philosopher Robert Spaemann’s idea of “education for reality”, which I find to be close to my own conception.

The question of freedom in education

Let us begin with Aristotle, who in his work on Politics is noted to say the following:

That education should be regulated by law and should be an affair of state is not to be denied, but what should be the character of this public education, and how young persons should be educated, are questions which remain to be considered. As things are, there is disagreement about the subjects. For mankind are by no means agreed about the things to be taught, whether we look to virtue or the best life. Neither is it clear whether education is more concerned with intellectual or with moral virtue. The existing practice is perplexing; no one knows on what principle we should proceed – should the useful in life, or should virtue, or should the higher knowledge, be the aim of our training; all three opinions have been entertained. Again, about the means there is no agreement; for different persons, starting with different ideas about the nature of virtue, naturally disagree about the practice of it.

(Politics, 8: II)

It seems that the issues dealt with in this quote have not changed much since Aristotle’s time. That education should be regulated by law and therefore is a question of state policy is almost common sense today. That it should also be carried out by the state is less self-evident but still strongly believed by educational thinkers and those fractions of the population who oppose the so-called neo-liberal “marketization” of schooling. However, the present author belongs to those who do not see this as self-evident (cf. Dahlin, 2010). Since this issue is highly relevant to the question of the aim of education, let us pursue it further.

State versus state-independent schooling

It is a commonly accepted historical fact that the rise of state funded and state run educational institutions did not happen only out of sheer altruism, but mainly because it was in the interest of the ruling classes to form loyal citizens and to develop the economy of the nation (Green, 1990). But the state did not always succeed in this; neither was it always open about its real intentions but concealed them under more idealistic discourses. Of course, particular individualities were probably completely honest in their engagement for educational rights, ideals and values. Considering these facts, it is no surprise to find that there are many conceptions of education and its aims, depending on the social, historical, political and cultural contexts in which they are conceived and the social/cultural/political interests behind them. An educational conception is unavoidably ethical in character; it is inseparable from values and ideas of “the good life” (Winch and Gingell, 2004). Apparently this was so already in ancient Greece, as indicated by Aristotle in the quote above. Naturally, the education that was implemented by the state in actual practice would also bear inevitable traits of a particular educational conception, constituted by cultural and political forces.

If this was so historically, is it any different today? One could expect it to be somewhat different in democratic states, where governments are forced to take more than one interest, ideology or conception into account when formulating its educational policies and national curriculum plans. However, even in democratic states there is the problem of “the tyranny of the majority”; that it may be more or less impossible for minorities (ethnical, cultural or religious) to institute their own educational ideals because of government decisions based on the will of the majority (Winch and Gingell, 2004, p. 6). There is also the strong tendency that the values of the elite or higher classes determine the educational conception of state run schools (Winch and Gingell, 2004). Hence, it would seem that in the name of justice people should be allowed to form their own schools and run them according to their own educational ideals. And this they have been allowed to do, as there are now so-called state-independent schools in all democratic countries. The question, however, is how much independent of the state these schools really are? Under the present almost global politics of “performativity” (cf. Ball, 2003) the margins of freedom for both the non-state schools and each individual state school are rapidly diminishing. National governments increasingly hold the idea that the aims and goals of education are for the state to decide, whereas how these aims are realized in practice is up to the schools. “Pedagogical freedom” is thus reduced to the freedom to choose the means for implementing the goals decided by the state. This would perhaps not be a complete mockery of pedagogical professionalism if goals and aims were explicated only for the last grade of obligatory schooling (15–16 years old in most countries). However, as a result of the growing importance of international comparisons like Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) and OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), aims are now often explicitly formulated already from grade 1 in order to make test results comparable across countries. What consequences does this have for the freedom and the possibility to choose a different educational conception than the one propagated by the state? If grade specific goals are made obligatory for all schools, public or “state-independent” – which is now the case in many countries – this freedom is severely restricted.

Arguments against a complete freedom in educational choices often include the following (cf. Winch and Gingell, 2004):

• the interests of the state or the society as a whole will not be taken account of
• many people are not “knowledgeable, committed and responsible enough to make the right decision” (Winch and Gingell, p. 14)
• there are problems which require co-operation directed by a central agency.

The “interests” referred to are presumably those of economy and social cohesion. But, concretely, in what way does an educational system based on freedom not take these interests into account? Winch and Gingell (2004) themselves point out that ideas about what is a good or “strong economy” differ. Thus, if the state is going to take economical interests into account it has to decide which model of a “strong economy” is the right one, against the interest of those who disagree. As for social cohesion, it might be argued that a school system consisting of many different ethnically, culturally or religiously based schools will increase difficulties of mutual understanding between sub-cultural sections of the population and hence potentially undermine social cohesion. However, the principle of freedom in education does not preclude the state from constituting a minimal set of laws to which all schools must abide (laws are different from aims and goals). One such law could forbid dogmatic and indoctrinating approaches in religious and political views – a law or regulation that is already in place in many countries.¹ One could also prescribe the duty to teach other religious and political systems than that of one’s own cultural group. Here it is also worth noting that social-psychological studies of tolerance indicate that the more authentically one is grounded in one’s own culture, the more open and tolerant one can be towards people of other cultural beliefs and values (Hornsey and Hogg, 2000; Moghaddam and Solliday, 1991).

Thus, even in democratic states there is a problem that the values of the majority, the elite or the higher classes determine the educational conception of state run schools. Traditional liberalism has tried to solve this problem by maintaining that the liberal state stands only for the values of autonomy or personal liberty and political equality; regarding all other norms and values the state is/should be neutral (Winch and Gingell, 2004, p. 141). However, can the state be neutral regarding conceptions of “the good life”? Under present conditions the answer is definitely no, considering that there is a strong link between the state and the economic system. Historically the state has intervened in education for two reasons: to develop faithful citizens and to develop the economy of the nation (Green, 1990; Winch and Gingell, 2004, p. 11). Although government intolerance for non-patriotism has obviously decreased in most democratic states, the economic interests of the state have not. The growth of the GNP is now virtually the overriding goal of all politics. This, together with the idea of the so-called knowledge economy (Neef, 1998), is what makes PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS so important. Economic interests become educational interests and education becomes “an affair of the state”, an issue of power and politics, not of freedom and creativity.

The conclusion of my argument in this section is that from a social and political point of view, the question of the purpose of education is always already answered by the actual practice of educational institutions – and this practice is virtually determined by social, political and economic power relations. At present there is hardly any freedom in the educational sphere because of state dictates about what standards ought be reached and when. From this point of view, the question of the purpose of education is rather much like a so-called academic question: our answer to it has little practical meaning in the current climate.

The social function of education

There is another perspective from which we could have reached the same conclusion. By referring to the functionalistic school of sociology the question of the purpose of education would be transformed into the question of the function of education in society. Looking at a phenomenon like education, one has to ask what function it has in the social system as a whole. The answer to this question was formulated decades ago; the function of the educational system is twofold: to reproduce the social structure and to “sort” the future citizens so that each one finds their “right place” in an increasingly differentiated labour market (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Hence, from this point of view also, the question of the purpose of education is too idealistic. We can debate over it as much as we want, the educational system will unaffectedly go on performing its functions – at least as long as our economical and working life is organised according to present principles. The early Marxist vision of a more humane society where we can be craftsmen in the morning, hunters in the afternoon and philosophers in the evening (or something of that sort) would require substantial changes of these principles.

Nevertheless, we continue to discuss aims and purposes of education and our ideas in this field are not without significance. The functionalistic view is only partially true and there are still some greater or smaller margins of freedom left. Even though educational thought has not affected the basic function of the educational system, it has in many places severely reduced the function’s inhumane consequences, for instance by counteracting the social predetermination of life trajectories that was so prevalent in the past. The idea that all children have the right to a common education that develops their inherent abilities, talents and interests for at least nine years is one example.² With that in mind, it still seems worthwhile to reflect on the aims of education in a more philosophical way, in spite of the fact that the functions of education are not likely to change unless the whole social system in which education takes place is radically transformed.

Aims of education: some suggestions

It may first be noted that there is a distinction to be made between process aims and outcome aims. Education is a process leading up to certain results in terms of acquired knowledge and capabilities, and we may aim for the process itself to manifest certain qualities. Even though the distinction is not always possible to uphold in practice – especially when it comes to complex aims such as “critical thinking” or “democratic attitudes and values” – this essay will focus specifically on the wished-for results of the educational process.

It has been noted that the issue of the purpose of education is basically related to how we understand what it means to be human (Standish, 2006), an insight that goes back to Aristotle (Reeve, 2000). If, furthermore, education is conceived as a “preparation for life” (Winch and Gingell, 2004) – probably the most general formulation of its aim (and therefore so empty that almost nobody can disagree) – then the next question to arise is: what is a genuinely human life? From the Enlightenment liberalism point of view (a perspective that has been fundamental for the democratic development of Western societies) human life and its preparation entails three b...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I What are the purposes of education?
• Part II What is the effect of non-parental childcare on child development?
• Part III Is shared-book reading an indispensable ingredient of responsible parenting?
• Part IV What should be done to foster children's mathematical development in the preschool years?
• Part V What is the role of digital media in early education?
• Part VI How is school readiness best fostered?
• Part VII Is academic skill acquisition important during preschool and kindergarten?
• Part VIII Is it important for children to acquire reading skills in preschool and kindergarten?
• Part IX What are the best ways to develop primary school children's mathematical abilities?
• Part X Is phonological awareness causally important in the acquisition of reading and spelling?
• Part XI What form should reading instruction in kindergarten and elementary school take?
• Part XII What is the pedagogical value of homework?
• Part XIII Is regular standardized assessment important for childhood education?
• Part XIV What is the role of the modern educator in fostering moral values and virtues?
• Index