Valuing outcomes over individuals (and groups, for that matter) depends in part on which metaphors dominate our thinking about education. There is some discussion of this at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_better_range_of_metaphors_for_education_than_the_technological_engineering_manufacturing_metaphors_that_seem_currently_to_dominate

 Outcomes (or products) seems to me to be a feature of manufacturing/engineering metaphors for thinking about education. Individuals become resources.

I wonder on this thread though if it would be worth considering what metaphors might help us to think about authenticity and so why education causes individuals to lose it - or, indeed, if it does. 

Here are some starters - authenticity = being unique, authenticity = growing in your own way, authenticity in not having to wear a mask.

Metaphors always point to some feature of the target, but can also disguise or point away from other features. These starters are no exception and are offered only as debating points, not what I think are necessarily good ones.

Nick this is an awesome question and I agree we haven’t seen much change as we are still very outcome driven. It is a fine line to educate students while also ensuring they are learning what we intend. With the onset of online education higher education has moved towards being more focused on the individual and how they learn allowing for students to work on their assignments in an asynchronous environment. This allows for a lessor amount of scheduling conflicts, and supports student accountability. Students are able to work when it’s best for their personalities and when they are the most productive. As a nation we have identified that we need to educate students based on their culture and background to ensure they are learning in a way that is conducive to them but we have yet to make that leap to change k-12 education to reflect those findings. Therefore the whole educational process is still hit or miss with teaching to the individual and not to the outcome.

Nick, my observation is that child centred is largely a myth among teachers. I am hyper vigilant about language and the ideas that language reflects, and what I hear is the term 'child centred' surrounded by language that implies class or grade level centred. I spend a lot of time reframing teachers' language to remind them of the individual within the group. What this tells me after so many years of our current system is that the 'individual' within the system is not the natural view, even among teachers, who profess to individualise. True individualisation is not impossible but the constructs of the system must match the desired perception. My staff (about 15 teachers) are my action research project. Over the last 7 years I have modified our system within my faculty to reflect the importance of the individual. In short, every document and process is constructed to reinforce the notion of decisions based on individual needs over comparative or group needs. One example of the problem is the grouping of students by achievement, eg not all D students are the same, each student has individual strengths, weaknesses and viewpoints that have to be considered.

On the large scale, the system does not support the value of the individual within the group. An example here is the grading system which encourages everyone to pigeonhole students into large groups-and think of them as similar. This arises by virtue of 3 characteristics of the grade itself:

1. they are comparative measures, ie A is best, Bis good etc.

2. they give the appearance of being FIXED attributes ie a student is a 'D' student, even though a D in grade 3 is qualitatively and quantitatively different from a D in grade 10, and the student has actually changed in ability.

3. It amalgamates a broad range of learner attributes into a single gross measure.

In my personal research I found that a system that conceived of student achievement as points along a set of continua which have fixed meaning from grade to grade, encourages teachers to use langage that does reflect the individual within the group.

Shorter answer:

Conceiving of the individual within the group seems to be difficult, so to make it happen every aspect of the education system has to be constructed to support the conception, (in a cultural studies kind of way). The more the system reinforces the value of the individual, the more it might happen.

I am aware that ACER has looked at this from an assessment and reporting perspective and its effect on students. I think He etecton teachers I even more important.

however way we see it EDUCATION is purely for behaviour-change.If learning does not change the individual ,nothing was transfered. so whatever method ,education shoud create a change in individuals,group,society,and the rest of the world.that is the mani need for education.

Thanks, Tadzia - I really feel that we need to progress towards a moral model with regard to changing our core assumptions about what education is and should be about.

Hi Mark. Sadly, I think you are correct in your observation about the myth of child centred learning. We see it mainly in early childhood classrooms, but still the spectre of the curriculum looms largely in educator's minds. To fully individualise, it will take a paradigm shift in the way we look at deucation

Hi Ijeoma. Thanks for your response. I agree that education should promote change in the individual. However, this should be positive change, resulting in growth. I think too much of what we see today is a very narrow view of what is considered success defined by a very limited paradigm, which results in a negative self narrative for many students.

Well said Nick. Reframing the meaning of success is a paramount goal. A 'personal best' model is a good start and has been found to work in some cases. Coupled with large scale changes as I suggest wouldhelp teachers and students adapt.

Dear Nick,

Yes, authenticity gets lost in the process. But is there any alternative to educate a child? Unsupervised learning is possible for adults, not for children.

Child-centered education has been meant for careful observation of individual child to find out his interest and skills which can be expanded and put to use. It is very clear that children are differently gifted, some may excel in sports, some in singing and dancing and some in arts and crafts while others may have a philosophical mind or may have interest in life or engineering or in anything other. Child-centered education was meant to find out these individually expressed and observed qualities of a child and try to develop them. Irony is that in an education system all have to follow up to school certificate almost the same curriculum. Individual attributes of child do not get full attention. In our own country, sometimes is crow rushing to engineering or medical courses or recently to management courses. Thanks to IPL phenomenon and money offered to players, parents are less objectionable to boys or girls who devote more time to sports than studies. It is in this context wherein individual authenticity is lost in education. It i bad outcome of a vision that could not be implemented successfully. Maybe either it is parents pressure who want their children either fall in their footsteps or to study what they like for their children. It is also possible who have to implement this vision did understood its philosophy or did not share the vision. Since, I am myself victim of opting forced subjects from the high schools onward against my wishes, therefore, I can understand repression of this system and can understand agony of those who are victim of the system.

Dear Hemanta, you provide the crux of the issue. I suggest there is a big difference between 'schooling' and 'education'. I think of schooling as adhering to the explicative, regimented order typified by the current reductionist model. I feel to provide the shift towards true 'education' we need a moral shift in the way we approach the education system, thus focus on the individual.

Dear Mohammed, thank you for your excellent response. I think you are right in that parental pressure plays a large part in the development and implementation of certain curriculum areas, particularly in the Primary years. Again, I feel we need a moral shift with regards to our focus on what is really important. When we regard the individual as such, we afford him or her the ability to discard the limiting effects of schema, enforced by the narrow constructs of the 'schooling' model. The effects of which are largely felt throughout the remainder of an individual's life. Surely we can do better?

Dear Sirs, in my opinion individual authenticity is lost in education, but the problem starts from losing the authenticity of the teacher. As a teacher myself, in Cyprus schools, I have realized that the centralization of the system leads teachers towards losing their voice, their opinion and eventually their personality. Therefore, if individual authenticity is lost among teachers how can we expect them to develop it among students?

You speak the truth Eleni. Over centralisation is the poorest form of quality control. In a human centred system such as education, the ability of teachers to make high quality decisions abou each student's needs at ach point in time is what delivers the highest quality outcomes. Sometimes I despair of the stupidity of bureaucrats,

Dear Eleni,

You have raised a different issue! What you perhaps mean is that there comes a time when the teachers lose their originality. Can there be a solution of this problem? I do not think so. Teachers are sometimes controlled by a system that might include people who have never taught a word. Can anything be done about that?

I am afraid that teachers lose much more than their originality. It is as if they cease to exist as people with opinions or beliefs. The system makes the decisions and treats teachers as workers and not co-workers.

Well said, Eleni. It is the problem of education based on a reductionist model that really leaves us tethered to the curriculum. Particularly in the age of quantifiable success through standardised assessments and performance tables. Our authenticity is indeed lost because of these constraints. As Freire stated, it is not in the rejection of the machine, but the humanisation of man, we should be looking at.

All of you answer this questions based on your system and teachers profile. In Brazil we have a fantastic law named Law of Guidelines and Bases, that allow the originality, authenticity and creativity, but profesors and teachers reject: most of the teachers want a system that says what to do and what not to do....

Teachers seem to be inherently conservative. They are, after all successful products of a conservative system. They were good at doing that which the system wanted them to, so it is natural that they like to know CLEARLY what they should do. Unfortunately it is not what we want, as you imply. In Queensland Australia I work in a school with 100 teachers, most are conservative but some are adaptive and experimental. I am responsible for 15 to 20 of those teachers. They are similarly mixed in their prediliction for creative work but I wanted them all to be, so I worked on the culture of the group by designing systems that explicitly and implicitly value process and outcomes simultaneously. In doing this I had to provide a 'safety net' for those teachers who are nervous of novelty. The best approach for me was a sort of 'permission giving' model. Where I stated, modelled, restated, reframed and demonstrated the dictum that 'mistakes are simply a sign of something new being tried and trying something new MIGHT lead to a better outcome'. As well, we talk, all the time, sharing the good, the bad and the ugly of our experimenting. So I guess we have adopted an action researh model, and its success depends on the small 'c' culture of the group, engendered either by 'the boss' or by strong leaders in the group. My science teachers by the way generally love their reputation as innovators.

PS I think in Australia that we have the security to be creative, as long as we can justify our experiments. Yet even with that security, most teachers are still very conservative and need to be brought out of their shells.

PPS and the more conservative in the group needed to see the more creative be successful before they woul begin the orocess by adopting and adapting the successes of the others.

Dr. Eaves and others:

I am new to Researchgate and do not want to intrude or offend. If I am out of line in this submission please advise and forgive.  I am a bit older than the typical graduate student, with a full work carreer completed before I went back to finish my undergraduate degree and enter graduate school.  I have what I think may be a unique perspective regarding student-centered learning and hope I provide constructive input.  I have ADHD, combined form.  I was finally diagnosed in 2004, while attending the University of Houston (Texas, USA) at the age of 58.  All my life I had experienced significant learning distress, with academic achievement wildly dependent on my ability to generate interest in the course.  I literally made either A's or F's.  I was both shocked and amazed to discover the source of my difficulty.  I made adjustments in my learning methods, started a medication program, and graduated with a GPA of 3.47. I entered graduate school at Walden University with a major in psychology.  I have completed my academic course work with a full major in counseling, clinical and educational psychology.  I started my dissertation for my PhD in educational psychology in March (2014).  The working title for my dissertation is A Comparison of Academic Results Between Instructor-centered versus Student-based Learning Design: Students with ADHD.  I have a profound interest in learning, memory, and the process of cognition.  Having experienced the profound effect of student-centered or based learning first hand I know just how powerful this is and the potential it has for a dynamic change in how we learn. Walden is an online school, so use of a student-centered learning protocol is a natural by-product.  I would stress, for those without personal online learning experience, that the student's work requirements far exceed those of brick and mortar settings. Two distinct factors enter into the learning dynamic: collaborative learning as a factor of "discussion postings" and the "enforced" development of critical thinking skills.  Further, as a side or by-product of its own, the student must also develop sufficient writing skills, including the use of a specific format (for Walden, psychology majors, this means the APA format), as well as significant composition and organizational skills.  Specific benefits of student-centered learning include school access at my convenience, reading and subject study in a quiet environment, absent distraction and interruption. As a result of having had the opportunity to attend graduate school in this learning method has allowed me to finish my academic requirements with a 4.0 GPA.  I can assure each of you that for me to have this kind of academic record is closely akind to me having acquired the ability to walk on water.  Thanks for the chance to contribute.

David W. Stewart, BS, MS Gen Psy,,Graduate Student PhD (ABD), Educational Psychology. Areas of specialization, include attention deficit hyperactivy disorder, and how this affects learning, memory and cognition. 

Dear Mary. This is an intersting point you have raised. I would think that a large part of the conservative education prcess you observe, relates directly to the prescriptive curriculum brought about by the desire to quantify learning.  In short, our 'education' is based on an explicative order and highly bureacratised.  I think (hope) educators would relish freedom to guide and foster authenticity, without the need for external limitations.

Mark, you provide excellent insight here. Thanks so much

Dear David. What a wonderful contribution.  It certainly has been an amazing journey you have been on.  I feel what you have recounted gets right to the point of what I want to achieve;  'All my life I had experienced significant learning distress, with academic achievement wildly dependent on my ability to generate interest in the course.'  I can only imagine what you internalised based on the outcomes of this academic achievement. In my opinion, if we can help young people to value themselves, to learn and grow and not allow 'schooling' to define their sense of self, only then are we achieving education's real aim

Thanks Nick. Your last statement describes exactly what happens every day in our schools. 'Schooling' defines students ' sense of self more often than not in a dysfunctional way, even for the 'good' students.

Dear Mark, your school sounds great. Developing a culture of teachers/researchers in a school might be, in my opinion, the best way to gain actual development in education. I am thinking about doing a Phd on this exact topic and I would be very interested in visiting your school and seeing how things work out in an Australian setting. In Cyprus the teacher/researcher culture will be very difficult to develop such because the fear of poor performance is still significant.  

Dr. Eaves 

Thank you for your understanding of the road I did indeed travel in my formative years- or perhaps I should say what should have been my formative years. I started college in the fall of 1963 - and attended some 7 other schools and acquired well over 200 hours of college credit and changed my major - oh gee, maybe 6 or 7 times. During this adventure I  never considered the journey as strange - understandable when you consider that I was the one doing the travel.  What was always odd to me - never shared with anyone mind you - was that I viewed all of this in  2 ways - as the participant of course - but also as if I was viewing from afar as well.  Not much I could do - but I always tried to remain true to what was me - while not taking a position of arrogrance or hubris. I just knew I had the ability to "think", just always seemed to mess up.  By the time I was at U of H, determined to finally finish - I had heard of ADD, did not know much about it - thought it was a convenient way to keep the kids spaced out etc - then my daughter was diagnosed with ADHD and Bi-Polar - Dr. started her on Rx - various - I opposed, mainly because I still had my head inserted into my anal cavity. I started reading about the disorder - went to see her Dr. - he said I had "textbook" symptoms for ADHD - and likely had this problem when I was a child as well - no way to confirm now of course. I often wonder what the outcome would have been if I had gotten proper treatment way back when.  This is what motivates me to learn as much as I can and try to put this into action as a teacher when/if I get the chance..

Again, thank you. 

David 

David, for me, your story epitomizes why I continue to argue for a change to schooling to minimise the risk that people like you opt out because they believe that they can't learn. You had the native resilience and self belief to see it through,  but as teacher for 30 years, most in low SES schools, I have seen too many students, who either, because of undiagnosed roadblocks to learning, or in many cases, whose only impediment was their home background, which gave them a poorer start to school, drop out with the belief that they 'couldn't do school'. Most of those children could have achieved much more if they had remained engaged in learning, and they woud have remained engaged if they had not been led to believe that there was no point to school for them.

Hello all~

 My name is Roy Goodman. I am an Interdisciplinary Student here at the U of A in Tucson  working on a masters certificate in Horticulture Therapy. My most recent time teaching was for 8 yrs in elementary schools on the Navajo Nation,where I was certified in Elementary Ed, Art and Industrial Arts –K- 12. Later I trained as a Manual Arts Therapist.

I have been involved with education in one form or another for most of my life. From being a camp counselor with young children, to working in drug rehab programs, to  transitional mental health care for adults and as a corrections counselor with youth. I have always been interested in developing – a forward looking preventative model /nurturing environment for Early Child Hood Education.

 So I am particularly interested in this discussion.

And I feel it appropriately brings up some rather thorny issues we need to consider, if only for the sake of our survival as a species. Let alone how we treat on another humanly and our youth in particular.

I especially want to discuss the value of  individual and the fulfillment of their potential WITHIN  community AND WITHIN  a fragile at risk environment. And especially the connection to what someone commented on –paraphrasing Palo Freire –on the need to Humanize Man .

The central issue for me is Alienation, and how education can liberate us from it or perpetuate it.

So what is schooling for ?  Define this and you define the method that works best.

Are we here just to  adjust to a fragmented compartmentalized, time motion study driven ,dog eat dog world--training to be – for so many-mindless appetites-drones -ciphers –trained to produce   and consume many  shinny things -in order to Be Someone of status  – rather than find our fulfillment and meaning by developing our special talent and joy in living it in meaningful relationship to others – as a Be-ing –a Becoming  what Buber calls a Thou  , to share it with other Thou-s , and be validated for it by our community. The real basis –I think –for the social contract.

I am focused on designing afterschool programs for latch key and neglected youth so they can connect their talents and interests to regular content area studies (Math Science Language Arts , etc.) through hands on STEM activities. My hope is that if they can connect to their higher calling in a way that resonates  with their deepest desire –what Maslow describers as aiming to be self-actualized persons – the world will make more sense to them and they will have the motivation to stay in school and out of trouble OR if they choose another path that it will be creative and productive and not self destructive or in blind rebellion.

I think a key is now the movement developing to see education as a way of solving problems –learning how to learn - with others in cooperative learning groups- a process of discovery – and valuing one another for our special contribution in the process NOT internalizing a quantity of information to be regurgitated on a test.

And yes teachers are conservative. Or I think afraid is a better way to describe it.

They are afraid to unleash their student’s talents lest they “get out of control”

 Not trusting that maybe students, their creativity and energy are good.

Teacher training should help them learn to tap into and channel that energy to positive ends.

We now- the so called advanced societies- throw away huge amounts of human capital each year – labeling stigmatizing and criminalizing -because some of our brightest students don’t’ fit the cookie cutter expectations of a lock step assembly line model of education.  

And because teachers – generally over worked and poorly paid and totally disrespected –have a lot of busy work to do to keep administrators happy. And generally have to use their own money to get basic supplies.

Why is zip code a general predictor of success? Well schools in better off communities have a tax base that supports extra curricular activities, good science labs and a better student teacher ratio.

But it is not just resources. it is a middle class attitude where parents are socialized to talk to students take them to the zoo or read to them when they are young. And have the time and resources to do so.

Lower class parents are not at all bad . But it is hard to do those things when you’re a single mom working two or more jobs to put food on the table.

So kids need that nurturing home environment after school.

Sincerely

Roy G

I think a key is now the movement developing to see education as a way of solving problems –learning how to learn - with others in cooperative learning groups- a process of discovery – and valuing one another for our special contribution in the process NOT internalizing a quantity of information to be regurgitated on a test.

And yes teachers are conservative. Or I think afraid is a better way to describe it.

They are afraid to unleash their student’s talents lest they “get out of control”

 Not trusting that maybe students, their creativity and energy are good.

Teacher training should help them learn to tap into and channel that energy to positive ends.

We now- the so called advanced societies- throw away huge amounts of human capital each year – labeling stigmatizing and criminalizing -because some of our brightest students don’t’ fit the cookie cutter expectations of a lock step assembly line model of education.  

And because teachers – generally over worked and poorly paid and totally disrespected –have a lot of busy work to do to keep administrators happy. And generally have to use their own money to get basic supplies.

Why is zip code a general predictor of success? Well schools in better off communities have a tax base that supports extra curricular activities, good science labs and a better student teacher ratio.

But it is not just resources. it is a middle class attitude where parents are socialized to talk to students take them to the zoo or read to them when they are young. And have the time and resources to do so.

Lower class parents are not at all bad . But it is hard to do those things when you’re a single mom working two or more jobs to put food on the table.

So kids need that nurturing home environment after school.

Sincerely

Roy G

"Teachers are conservative." "Teachers are afraid." it is just possible that in highly prescriptive curricula and conditions of high accountability for students' test results that teachers   can suffer as much as students from lost individual authenticity. Just a late night thought on dipping in to this thread without reading through it fully, so forgive me if I have missed something.

Roy - this is for you in response to  your posting.  Good Man! I thought I knew how to "rant" but you bring it to a whole new level - good on you.:).  To be clear lest you think I imply otherwise, I commend your thoughts here.  I go somewhat further: do away with "schools" and "education" as presently considered.  No more huge money eating constructions.  No more text books.  Yes, children need socialization - goodness knows some never get enough ! BUT, let's separate the education from the socialization process.  Let's put education squarely on the backs of those who need education - the children/students.   I suggest "community" centers - no not another name for schools - although clearly we don't want to just tear these down - must be practical after all - but true community centers - say to serve the estimated # of children in a specific distance. NO not segregation. If we need to, clearly transport must enter into the equation - we need a balanced distribution of ethnicity - for what is right and what is clearly the benefit to society and the children.  But, the kids go to these facilities for play, band, cheer leading, chess club, Future Farmers of America, Scouting, whatever. I would suggest attendance on a maybe 2 day or 3 day schedule - need to work on this - obviously need to consider if all day or 1/2 day etc. - probably depends on the age/grade of the children - more on this in a moment.  Other days or times the student is involved in learning - more in a moment - again all day, 1/2 day and so on.  '

Now age/grade - right now we say that the 7 year old student should learn XYZ  in grade - what 1 or 2?  - Ok.  So, perhaps we need to reconsider this - children should advance based on their proficiency in a "given" subject - Example: my child is 9 - in grade 3  or 4 - but the kid is slow - writes like he is using a stone - and really does not understand the concept of putting more than 3 items together and getting a total.  Lots of reasons why - intelligence, LD of some kind, cultural, ethnic issues, social economic issues, home problems - whatever - point is he needs to stay with his age peers - so why do we let this child advance when he does not know what he needs to know before he goes to a higher level.  How about we tailor our kid's learning - this year regardless of "grade" number, in fact remove that stigma - we have 8 year old, 15  years old, and so on - not grades. Students must remain in "schooling" until the end of the year they turn 18; must start in the year they turn - 5? 6? 7? -  Advancement of learning not by age, or classification.  What a concept.  Also we Americans seem to operate on a fantasy that all children need to go to college - our education system is structured around this myth for the most part - how about follow the European model, and establish an apprentice program at about age 15-16 - once certain core subjects are mastered.  Suggestions welcome on which most important here - not the issue - let the students more oriented to academics go that way, welders, plumbers, electricians - lots and lots of skilled jobs here - let these students actually leave "high school" as we call it - let them leave prepared to actually enter the work force and be able to make a legitimate living. 

So here is my "plan" - the education part of this is structured on a student centered constructivist model - sure the younger children need adequate supervision - but as they mature, learn, they need less supervision - teacher/lecturer instruction - evolves into additional student responsibilities - development of critical thinking skills, writing skills, and so forth.  Follow an amended format of distance education - adjusted for age, knowledge, maturity - collaborative learning - use the influence of their peers to inspire and help them learn. The teacher should start as a mother hen - watchful, direct, the usual - grades 1- maybe 4 ? - (that is age 7- maybe 10 max) - then slowly each year the student acquires additional responsibility for their learning - on the internet - electronic text - interactive with the instructor and the fellow students - set up a "school" twitter account or facebook sort of design but one limited to the students in the particular class - again age sensitive and learning ability sensitive - the instructor/teacher/professor etc moderates the operation of the class, the interaction between students, between working groups etc. Bottom line - a teacher can not "make" a student learn - the student learns as a factor of socialization, desire, motivation, stimulus and peer activity - or not. Define teaching ? Sure, teaching is the art of assisting those who don't know something, to aspire to a desire to want to know something, helping them to grasp the key concepts involved, while encouraging them to believe in their individual ability to obtain their objective.  I can take a 1 inch hickory stick and make you learn essentially anything - only moderated by your raw intelligence really - a foreign language, math, you name it - beat them until they love you. OK, but what do they learn in the process?  I submit that the problems we see today are a direct linear reflection of school models established 100's of years ago. We need to encourage the development of "thinking" not memorization.  

Ok enough for me - thanks

David  

Good rant David. Base everything on the apprenticeship model and it could work. Everyone needs a goal. Schools create artificial, competitive goals for 'scores' that I think are particularly dysfunctional. I have tried to focus kids on the concept of 'doing a good job' rather than competition. It works to some extent but the extant paradigm of schooling continues to get in the way for many.

Mark 

And of course you are right.  I have no expectations that I or my grandchildren will live to see the true overhaul of how we teach, combined with a realistic understanding of how we actually learn anything.  BUT, we gotta try.  :)  I mean, how do you and I learn? OK, we are the "professionals" - I assume you have a PhD = about everyone I deal with does - but whatever your level  ( I am writing my dissertation now) we both clearly - and all the other folks that participate on exchanges like this - are clearly well educated, are bright, self directed etc.  So we got to ask ourselves the question here - how do I learn? You? etc..  I mean, what actual process is involved that will allow me to pull info out of my memory so I can respond to you, what magical process occurs here that allows us as humans to communicate?  Oh, sure lots of studies, lots of MRI's and so on - I have reviewed them and so have you and the others - but bottom line how do I actually learn anything?  In my case, and I bet with you as well, because I wanted to - yeah fairly simply really and awesome as well - but I direct my attention to something, I read, I listen, I think about it and I remember as much as I choose to remember.  More importantly perhaps is I choose to remember that which interests me - because I am engaged with the what ever it was I noticed.  So, knowing this why would I assume that my students, my children, etc, are any different?  Well they are not.  Sure, some are brighter, but heck the same can be said of my kids as well.  We also need to consider lazy, tired, hungry, bullied, abused at home, and so on as each factors into my student's ability to have an interest - just like me.  

Thanks

David 

Exactly so David. I think that I have to spend an inordinate amount of time undoing the negative perceptions of school. I spent a good part of a lesson today doing just that. How good would it be if I didn't have to deal with negative attitudes to learning. Those attitudes are much more important than specific deficits when it come to learning.

The simple answer for the question,' Is individual authenticity lost in education' is YES. Why? It is because almost all educational system brings teachers and students moving forwards to pursue for 'EXCELLENCE', unfortunately, in terms of liveing skills, one of the most important skills during schooling is to get as high score as possilbe, no matter what kind of scores or tests.

Thanks, Ming-Lee.  It is interesting that living skills are encompassed within a 'score'

That is the key reason why students in Taiwan can be hard to be themselves, or say, to be authentic in schooling.  However, this value, though, comes partly from the traditional value of Confucian thoughts,, partly from America trend, in terms of meritocracy which hinders students thinking critically.

Is "meritocracy" the same as scoring high on a test?

Where does comprehension enter in ?

Where does application of knowledge -and application to what end?

How are these related to ethical and moral and environmental questions ?

And thus what is the relationship between meritocracy, thinking critically and application of knowledge ?

Ad finally how can we best relate a child's interest gift or talent and direct their creative energy to a) develop and fulfil their potential  WHILE

               b) also making a positive contribution to society

So I ask again : what is education for ?

well said Roy.

Valuing outcomes over individuals (and groups, for that matter) depends in part on which metaphors dominate our thinking about education. There is some discussion of this at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_better_range_of_metaphors_for_education_than_the_technological_engineering_manufacturing_metaphors_that_seem_currently_to_dominate

 Outcomes (or products) seems to me to be a feature of manufacturing/engineering metaphors for thinking about education. Individuals become resources.

I wonder on this thread though if it would be worth considering what metaphors might help us to think about authenticity and so why education causes individuals to lose it - or, indeed, if it does. 

Here are some starters - authenticity = being unique, authenticity = growing in your own way, authenticity in not having to wear a mask.

Metaphors always point to some feature of the target, but can also disguise or point away from other features. These starters are no exception and are offered only as debating points, not what I think are necessarily good ones.

Colin, you have raised an excellent point here.  I think, because of the narrow definition of educational success,  many are forced to lose this 'uniqueness' that is so apparent in early childhood classes. Schools are a wonderful vehicle of socialisation and so by design, they homogenise; this is the most effective form of information delivery.  Ironically, it is those who rebel against this homogeneity, often in the form of behavioural issues as a direct result of internalised failure, that appear most unique. Their deviant behaviour defines them as unique within the schooling model, but not necessarily authentic.

Authenticity happens where a curriculum is responsive to the learning needs, strengths, interests and cultural capabilities of learners. In my view, schooling regimes that are overly focused on testing and  curricula that are too prescriptive (i.e. substantially delivered through text books) get in the way of learning and rob students of the opportunity to become competent and capable individuals.

Robyn and Gloria, as a middle and senior school teacher, it makes me very happy to hear your views.  I feel if we can get through this overly reductionist phase in education, perhaps the focus will shift to the development of the individual.

Aside from promoting this discussion in forums like this and among colleagues - and for those of us in teacher education, with our pre-service teachers - how do we bring more people, particularly policy makers and school administrators, into the conversation?

Is it too cynical to suggest that often policy is driven by political agenda, rather than 'what is right'?  A significant shift in educational paradigm may be too difficult a challenge for most.  Having said that, we cannot throw our hands in tthe air and resign ourselves to an unsatisfactory status quo.  Perhaps raising these issues is an inroad to eventual change?

Linda has raised an excellent question and one that Nick and Mohammad show is not easy to answer. Politicians do have their own agendas and, for some at least, that involves holding on to power. However, there is also some room for optimism. A shift in paradigm involves seeing that another paradigm is possible and it is perhaps the case that politicians (even school administrators) do not see the alternatives. 

It is interesting that one subject that never appears on a school curriculum is Education - its purposes/aims, possibilities, methods, and so on. Perhaps all curricula should include, let us call it, Educational Studies. Then we would all be involved in the debate from our school days onwards - or is that too optimistic/utopian/'pie int he sky'?

Colin, this is a wonderful idea; the concept of Educational studies as a subject.  This would allow the students to have a more thorough understanding of the methods and reasons behind 'schooling', thus enable them to question our approaches.  It would be in this way that the students would be able to act as catalysts for change.   As a philosophical approach to a real-world issue, we can never see these ideas as too optimistic/utopian/'pie in the sky' as this is how real change happens, I believe.

Hello Nick,

There is some very interesting ideas on this subject that are flooting around in the theoritical world. One I think you might enjoy is the idea of an ontology to education. As you know ontology is the study of being, becomming, existence. The arguements of Lave & Packer (1991); Lave, (1997); and Oyserman & Packer (1996) that there is an ontology in learning and they connect to the notion of  education is "bringing into being a type of person". In other words the job of education is to a type of person into being that the powers that be feel "fits into" society. 

One can this this three ways, First, some would argue good thats what is needed, Second, social engineering, Third, social reproduction. When you think about it bringing into being a type of person and its fits in the history of education here in the U.S. it is a little frighten. 

It makes one wonder and answers some important questions. 1) standarderazation, 2) where has creativity gone, 3) imagination of the learner not being fostered, 4) High states testing could be used as a test for "how deep" the social programing has been internalized, ect.

To answere your question directly I unfortunitly have to say yes. 

My answer is derived from peoples first reaction when they see someting different and describe it as being "weird", or "what wrong with that guy" of the face contortions. 

A world of homogeneous people, I glad I wont see it!!

Douglas

Hi Douglas,

Thanks for your great answer. There are definitely a couple of points you have raised, that I shall investigate further.

Nick and others;

Interesting philosophical abstractions.  Outcomes versus individuals, or groups? Historically speaking we humans have stressed social contribution as a factor of education versus individual achievement, personal enrichment, or even artistic inspiration. Clearly we are doing it wrong,  Sure always exceptions - I daresay that Einstein would have made some kind of contribution one way or another even if he had only obtained a 4th or 5th grade education.  Same thing applies to Mozart, Edison and so on.  I think it highly likely that true genius will prevail - but it occurs to me that I have every possibility of being wrong as well, as if an "Einstein" did not rise above his station and still give us his abstract perceptions of math, energy, gravity and time - how would we know, eh?  How many geniuses died in the trenches in World War I ? Where would we be today if the swine flu had not stuck back in - what, something like 1914? or thereabouts - if the plague had not come, and on and on?  So the reason for this brief walk down memory lane is simple really - education should and of a right ought to be all about the expansion of each person's capability, such that we achieve the very best of ourselves in our cognition.. imagination, dreams and the like.  As it turns out I am writing my dissertation now about the difference between conventional teaching and constructivist or student-centered learning and how these two learning styles directly affect the ability of a student with ADHD and how they will or can obtain their academic potential.  In my opinion we must 'throw out the baby with the wash water' when it comes to educational methods.  In theory I can teach almost anything to anyone if you will let me use a large enough hickory stick.  However I would also submit that the ability to recite data on demand - as in a test - does not in itself demonstrate development of critical thinking skills.  We should start in the first grade and involve the student in the learning process, academic achievement by objective as determined by student interest and ability. It is not enough that I know how to ride in a wagon, or drive a car, or operate a computer - If we are to succeed as a species I must understand design, operational capability, function, and purpose as well.  We have missed the boat on this I am afraid.   We have become a society of users as opposed to creators. 

Thanks

David 

Mohmmad 

First of all thanks for your endorsement of my earlier comments. Coming from you this was high praise indeed. I clearly have a very long way to go in my writing and research ability and contributions. 

Having said this, I want to compliment your posting here in regards to the concepts of core common ground education.  Your observations are insightful.  Unfortunately I worry about practicality. Why?  Well to put a point on it, I live in Texas, USA. I am a "Native born Texan", which is somewhat akin to proudly stating the same for one's birth status in any country - regrettably, for those born in Texas, our pride - and politics - more or less requires our announcement as to our Texas roots over and above our national affiliation. :) - Yes, I jest, but perhaps not too much on this point.  

I know this is not a suitable place for political commentary - and I will refrain. I would be remiss, however, to ignore the realities of the education system in the states today. In order to understand American education one has to examine the roots. Early settlement of America resulted from emigration from England - primarily- later France (mainly in Canada), Holland, and so on.  "England" of course includes Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc.  Naturally education in America followed traditional teaching methods.  Unfortunately the design of American education and education systems  also considered the issues of - to be polite - "the minority question'.  We enjoy some of the greatest social and legal freedoms of any society on Earth. However as I am sure you know, we have literally thousands of school districts - all of which are at the mercy of local political control.  Changes are being made, and maybe one day we will see some consolidation of these many school districts into some kind of a national educational protocol.  As a consequence, I admire your perceptive analysis, but fear practical implementation.

Thanks

David  

If you have ever pondered, "Why everything is the way it is?," then you know what I mean when I say that everything is just the way it is supposed to be according to the rules established by those who REALLY run the world.  Now, this can be viewed as a horrible rationalization, or a pessimistic and fatalist statement or it can answer many of the questions we have about life and society.  Typically, there has always been those who control society.  Kings, philosophers, generals, banks, industrialists, megabillionaires, etc.  As a  mass culture, unless we were included in this group, we have always had limited freedom to make choices and to experience life on our own terms but make no mistake, once our personal freedom strays into the realm of the elite, we are "shut down", immediately.  How are the stories, movies, television developed that reflects this reality over and over, yet we do not believe in it?  Is it all imagination and trickery, or does it all exist in varying degrees of life; so subtle that we barely notice it?  If there are changes to be made, they will have to be non-threatening to the status quo, or else they will not happen.  Micro change will eventually move mountains, but only if they are not the property of someone else.