Dear Usuf,

I follow you when you say that dehumanized education is common in hierarchical societies. As yoy say, in these socities "the emphasis is placed on stringent requirements in which students either fulfill or get kicked out. There are no intermediate students in their dictionaries. A student is either bright or weak because of their preconceptions of fixed intelligence. Any failure on the part of the students is directly blamed on students’ intelligence. This type of system cares less about the personal development of their students rather they take pride only in academic excellence. The worst scenario is to find an excellent student that is doing well in virtually every aspect of “their curriculum” except for one. Instead of a dehumanized system to investigate that problematic part of the curriculum they blame the student’s intelligence for his failure and may even kick him/her out of the system."

I wonder whether you are aquianted with William Perry's (1970) work on forms or positions of ethical and intellectual development in the college years. He speaks about four main positions in such a type of development: Dualism, Multiplicity, Relativism and Commitment. This type of education reminds me of dualism. Students are either bright or weak, know or do not know, and the like. As I see it, societies that provide the student with this type of education are based, say, on the pospel of money, greed, injustice, competition, and the like. Also they want students to be obedient and conformist people who accept the satus quo and the mainstream as well as ready made and established truths imposed on them from the outside.

A humanized education goes well with egalitarian societies. As you say, in these societies, "curriculum requirements are key elements of this education system but with some flexibility depending on the situations. A failing student is not dejected and kicked out so quickly. Rather, remedial efforts are channeled towards invigorating such a student. In this system, learners are seen as evolving through a series of cognitive development. There are weak students, bright students, and struggling students. The roles of struggling students are interchangeable with either weak or bright students. For example, a bright student could become struggling when faced with some difficult tasks and his/her intelligence is not blamed for this incidence. Rather, necessary supports will be provided in a humanized system to circumvent this challenge. People are happy with the learning process in this system and properly prepared to face challenging societal difficulties after schools. However, what seems quite unsatisfactory is this system is, in some cases, lack of proper scrutiny or criticisms of students which might lead to complacency at times"

This type of education reminds me of W. Perry's positions of multiplicity, relativism and commitment. As I see it, societies that provide the student with this type of education are based, say, on the pospel of love, empathy, justice, cooperation, and the like. Also they want students to be creators and innovators, that is, students who do not accept, but rather question, the satus quo, the mainstream or ready made and established truths.

Jean Piaget (1972) wrote a seminal book: Où va l´éducation [To understand is to invent: The future of education] on this issue. In this book, Piaget argues that only education, an active processes that involves both teachers and students, can save societies and even individulas from possible collapse, be it violent or gradual. Of course, education is costly but is far less costly than its alternative, ignorance.

Given the the role on education in the the development of indivduals and societies, teachers should do their best to generate students interested in the pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful and hence citizens of the world.

I hope I has you question and that this helps.

Kind regards,

Orlando