There are two kinds of people… wait. Let me start over.
What you have to understand is… no. that’s not right.
EDUCATION is wot bwings us togeder tooday.
EDUCATION, that bwessed awangment,
that dweam wifin a dweam...
And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva...
So tweasure your wuv
Ok. I think I’m ready, now that I got Princess Bride out of my system. Here we go.
What is the goal of education? Anybody? Anybody? Must be 80’s day today.
***
What is the goal of education?
It’s 2021. Education is or was one of the largest (in terms of time) parts of our lives. So this question should not be especially difficult or controversial. Right?!?!?!
Oh, but it is, but it is.
If we asked a random sample of the population, we’d find three groups: Group 1 “never really thought about it”, while Group 2 will give some canned responses such as “to teach children”, “to impart knowledge”, “to learn new stuff”, and Group 3(a much smaller group) will have dozens of narrowly defined notions and strong opinions on the goals of education that will not be at all in agreement.
Here’s an actual example of answers to the question.
Oh, I forgot to ask YOU if YOU think YOU know the goal of education. Let’s have it. Try wording it out. In your head, or out loud if you so desire.
I’ll try it too. Right now.
Where To Start
Here's my first try: The goals of education are…. to impart knowledge, teach skills, and develop competencies to/in a student body.
Ok, it appears that I'm in the same league as the group 2. Needless to say, my answer wasn’t canned, unlike the rest of group 2.
Why even ask this question?
Before we start any conversation about the current state of education, or about improving or changing it, we must first agree on the goals. If one person thinks the goal is “to develop practical skills”, while another believes the goal is to “teach students to think”, the two individuals shouldn’t be having any conversations about education method or policy until they get to the same page on its goals.
Before answering the “how” of better education, we must figure out the “what is” better education. Before figuring out the “what is” of better education, we need to agree on the “why” of better education. Hence, the question: What are the goals of education?
But before we continue, I already want to change my answer. I want to change “impart” to “instill”. What good is imparting? Imparting says nothing about retention. If 100 knowledge bits are imparted and 3 are retained, nobody is happy.
Does instill do the trick? Instill... A little violent. Kinda like: “You are going to eat this, or else!” “I’m going to instill this quadratic equation through your ear canal. And if that doesn’t work, I’m going to instill it down your throat.” A bit old school, I know. But I can’t think of anything better for now, so I’m going with instill.
In fact, I need to make another change to my definition. I don’t think I like “teach” any more; mostly for the same reasons that I didn’t like “impart’. What if the teaching party is not very good? What if teaching doesn’t work? And so, I’d like to replace “teach” with… drumroll… “instill”. Yep, I just did that. I guess I could borrow “develop” from the last clause in my definition. That would also work.
So here is my updated definition: The goal of education is to instill knowledge, instill skills, and develop competencies in a student body.
Ok. My definition doesn’t sound especially sexy. It’s kinda boring; old-fashioned even.
Well, we can fill in the blanks to spice it up a bit. The goal of education is to instill knowledge of wizardry, instill skills of innovative problem solving, and develop competencies in wilderness survival.
Sound better? Is innovative problem solving actually a skill? No. It’s thousands of skills combined. So it still works.
Defining Together
Now that I subjected myself to the gauntlet of rigorous self-analysis, let’s try some of the other definitions from Here. My hope is to enrich my definition with the help of this process.
“To impart knowledge and skills and prepare people for the real working world…that’s the ultimate goal in my book.”
Ok, Miss Kahn, that’s a rookie mistake you made with “impart”. But we’ve all been there, so don’t feel bad.
Miss Kahn introduces the neat concept of “real working world”. How do we feel about this? It’s not as innocent as it sounds - one might even say controversial. Does it need to be controversial?
I think I like it. I like it because it’s real. We still live in a world where (for most of us) work is a huge component of our livelihood. Education that chooses to ignore reality better advertise itself as such, otherwise there will be some very disappointed customers.
I also like it because there is an “and” in front of it. My concern would be to narrow the definition to ONLY preparing people for the real working world. This would be a problem because living a healthy and rewarding life requires skills and knowledge that may not belong in the office or factory.
Thanks to Miss Kahn, I updated my definition: The goal of education is to instill knowledge, instill real world skills, and develop competencies in a student body.
_____
Next up is Leonard Anneta.
“In short, to think-deeply and broadly. If we produce learners who can solve problems and be informed voters then education wins.”
Ok. Leonard’s answer requires some thought. “To think deeply and broadly” sounds appealing. “Deeply” suggests an ability to focus and hints at some competency (or is that my wishful thinking?). But I think we can all agree that in our frighteningly Tweet-thin world, more depth is good. And I read “broadly” as a stand-in for the older “well-rounded”. Why not.
Meanwhile, “thinking” is also important, but I do think it needs further definition. I have a feeling that Leonard is choosing “thinking” as an alternative to knowing, because… well, because Wikipedia. Perhaps he sees the modern world where synthesizing knowledge supersedes knowing knowledge. I’m not 100% on board with that, but that’s for another post.
I like how Leonard introduces democracy into the equation. He makes the assumption that good thinkers and problem solvers make good voters. I tend to agree.
I also like that the focus is on the student. The student is a thinker. The student is a problem solver. The priority of education goals is where it should be: on the learner and not on the “imparter”.
What’s missing from Leonard’s definition is: the doing. We can have great thinkers and problem solvers, but that’s just half of the equation. The other half is execution. It’s the doing. It’s the work. Unless these students end up in academia, they may not be adequately prepared for that “real working world” that Miss Kahn mentioned.
*** My updated definition: The goal of education is to instill knowledge, instill real world skills, develop competencies, and develop broad and deep thinking in a student body.
_____
“Every student will experience an authentic learning environment where they rigorously apply knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines to solve real world problems and answer meaningful questions.”
Oh David. David David David. I can’t lie. I like what you say. I think I understand what you say. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and your definition really leaves it quite open for the beholder.
What is “an authentic learning environment”? I have my ideas, but I have no idea what yours are.
I do like “rigorous”. I think it’s too often left unsaid. Rigor is good. Intensity is good. Challenge is good. We want our learners firing on all cylinders at all times.
I also like the introduction of the multidisciplinary approach (although one can argue that Leonard covered that with ‘broadly’). Although, this does veer more into the how to get to the goals versus what they are.
As for the goals, we have “real world problem solving” and “answering meaningful questions”. Real world problem solving I can get behind, although it’s still a bit vague. And I have no idea what David means by “meaningful questions” so I won’t start guessing.
Updated definition: The goal of education is to rigorously instill knowledge, rigorously instill multidisciplinary real world skills, rigorously develop competencies, and rigorously develop broad and deep thinking in a student body.
_____
“To us, the ultimate goal of education is to spark a pursuit of knowledge in the child, so that they keep on learning as they grow into whoever they choose to be.”
This one makes me uncomfortable. “To spark a pursuit of knowledge.” What if the spark fails? What if the pursuit fails? What if the knowledge is useless? I’d say that Talk STEM are out of touch with reality. Of course it’s awesome to get the learners engaged to the point of developing themselves. But as an “ultimate” goal, I’d say that’s really putting all eggs into one basket. Or rather, it’s hoping that the eggs roll independently into the basket without breaking themselves.
_____
“Preparing all kids 4 meaningful engagement in 21st century civic, economic, cultural, & social life that awaits them after High School.”
I don’t think I like “preparing”. I like the quote… minus the “preparing”. Preparing is just not strong enough. That’s why I ended up with the violent “instilling”.
I think that “preparing” over-promises and under-delivers. The real world is complex enough that nobody is quite “prepared” for it. It requires adaptation and agility, and includes too much that one can’t prepare for. At the same time, “prepare” is too vague when it comes to the toolkits of skills and knowledge. I may be getting too pedantic here, but preparing seems like a blanket term that is meant to give comfort, but lacks the muscle to back it up.
In fact, perhaps it’s the before and after tone of this definition that rubs me the wrong way. The real world starts after high school? Why? Why can’t the learners engage with the real world earlier? Are average 11th graders immune from the real world? Should they be?
In a way, Kenneth is already focusing on the “whats” of better education. He’s thinking about a specific education system and how to make it better. But I am looking for a more universal answer to the question.
Updated definition: The goal of education is to rigorously instill knowledge, rigorously instill and engage multidisciplinary real world skills, rigorously develop competencies, and rigorously develop broad and deep thinking in a student body.
Conclusion
Ok. How do we feel about my new definition? Let’s try reading it out loud. I like it… and I hate it.
I agree with it, but it’s so bloated. Starting with something so complex suggests that our task of creating a better education is that much further out of reach. Meanwhile, I’m looking for something foundational; a first principle.
Good news. I think I have a solution.
Can we simplify this definition, while also strengthening it? Can we find a key that removes all redundancy while still being true to these goals? Can we find a way to unify all of these different opinions about education without falling prey to contradictions and paradoxes?
Yes. We can.
The goal of education is to develop competencies in a student body.
Knowledge + skill = competency. To think deeply is a competency. Solving math problems is a competency. Respectful and rigorous philosophical debate is a competency. Creating CGI special effects is a competency. Competency is the wonderful intersection of what we can know and what we can do.
I would suggest that successful education successfully develops competencies in a student body. Perhaps we can also say that the goal of a good education is to rigorously develop competencies in a student body.
Comments