A few days ago my dad sent me a link to a BBC news piece about schools in Finland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8601207.stm
The piece discusses that even though Finnish students spend the least amount of time in school out of all of the countries in the industrialized world, Finnish schools are among the best in the world, often having the best test scores on international tests, or the second best to South Korea. Koreans, however, spend the most amount of time in school in the world and the Korean government wants to revamp the education system, according to another BBC piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8605789.stm). They want to make it less about memorization, creating “exam machines,” and more so about fostering imagination and ingenuity. I hope that happens. I really really hope that happens. I have students in the 3rd and 4th grade who are so creative and funny, along with being smart, and it’s sad to think that for some of them, that ingenuity may leave them as they spend more and more time studying over the next decade.
I really liked that the Korean government is taking this seriously, but I was disturbed by a similarity between the BBC piece on Korea and that on Finland. In both pieces, especially the one on Finland, the journalist placed an emphasis on education as a means of fostering a stronger economy in both countries. I understand that that is a goal of a country’s education system, but it shouldn’t be the only goal. I remember watching a lecture by British historian and comedian, Mark Steele, about the French Revolution. He said that one of the most radical ideas was that everyone had the right to be educated, and for no extrinsic purpose, like to better the national economy, but for the intrinsic benefit of knowledge and education; that everyone had the right to be educated because it gives people a fuller and richer life and human experience. Shouldn’t that be the purpose of education: to improve the overall quality of life? I understand that economic factors play into this, but the BBC piece didn’t say that a better education leads to better politicians, more informed voters, better doctors and teachers, a stronger sense of culture, more advanced science and literature, better music – it only talked about it’s benefit to the economy.
My bachelor’s is in history and without any other credentials, it doesn’t necessarily help me economically. I can get a job that requires that the applicant have a bachelor’s degree, but very few jobs are specifically looking for history majors. However, despite it’s lack of economic viability, I’m very satisfied with my degree. Through obtaining it, I learned so much about my own culture and society and Latin America’s. Because of my four years of studying history in college, I now have a better sense as to why the world is as it is today and I feel less disoriented than I would without those four years and that I feel made the four years of hard work worth it. And now that I’m out of college, what I learned will help me in any future career that I choose and I’ll be more equipped than if I didn’t have it.
I feel as though the purpose of school and knowledge should be to give the student more insight into the world around him or her and to encourage him or her to build on that knowledge. Yes, a country needs to consider economic concerns, but that shouldn’t be the only concern when said country is educating its youth.
