I was in the gym the other day, just finishing up and about to leave when I got into a conversation with a 51-year old grandfather. We were talking about what makes life good. We both agreed that something like the Greek ideal of a good life was close to correct. This is the idea that the good life consists of a balance of intellectual, physical, and spiritual challenges. Now, I'm an atheist, so for me "spiritual" means, perhaps, "moral and aesthetic," but anyway I'm on board. We were also talking about the need for challenge, the need for adversity. People grow when they are challenged. People not only need to be challenged, bu they need to be challenged in multiple non-overlapping ways. Roughly: physically, mentally and spiritually (though I'm not sure these categories are exhaustive, or even very good; some set of sub-categories may be better).
This means to me that we need to structure society to present these sorts of challenges. First, maybe we give kids intellectual challenges in school, but at least the kinds of broad critical thinking skills that generalize well are being under-emphasized in favor of more easily testable skill sets. To me this is ridiculous: who is it exactly that thinks that ease of testing is good indicator of intellectual value? This is a fallacy so absurd that I will not even bother to refute it here. So, my point is that we are failing in this society to give our children the kinds of intellectual challenges that they need to grow. Second, P.E. is also being tossed out in many school districts. This is amazing. There are societal benefits to teaching children the value of exercise (i.e. less obesity and all of the economic woes that derive from it), but moreover, it's screwing the kids out of another of the sets of challenges that they need to grow into well-rounded, healthy adults! Facing a little bit of self-imposed physical pain helps you to know yourself better, to know what you're capable of. It can breed confidence and strength, and conduce to emotional stability. None of these claims are new, and many of them are heard in reference to the movement to encourage young girls to pursue sport activities. But now, not only are girls not getting enough physical activity, but everyone is getting screwed!
OK last one: "spiritual" growth. Like I said, I see this as "moral and aesthetic" growth. Some might argue that moral teaching ought to be the sole domain of the parents (and their church, of course). Setting aside the loss of art programs, which fits in to the aesthetic side, I want to address the idea of helping kids achieve moral growth in state-sponsored activities like public school. I think it's silly to say that only parents should teach their kids right from wrong, etc. The state, and we all, have an interest in seeing that children are taught certain values that are necessary to the existence of a democracy. These include, but are not limited to, tolerance, respect for others, a sense of civic duty, an appreciation of diversity, and so on. I absolutely think that the parents are, and ought to be, the primary moral instructors (how could they not be? They have unmitigated access for the first 3-4 years). But the parents alone aren't necessarily even able to provide all of the challenges necessary for a child. It is a different situation to be surrounded by your peers and asked to make decisions than to be told by your parents what you should do. Further, I think that certain kinds of peer-group activities can lead to feeling a sense of civic duty (e.g. the responsibility to vote, to understand the governmental process, to be an active member of various community projects, committees, and so on), in a way that purely local family interaction may not be able to provide. Our schools currently provide, if any, only the barest introduction to the process of government, and how to participate in it. It is this kind of moral instruction that I think is needed in schools. Arguments can be made for "peer mediation" programs and such, for groups of kids who tend to be disruptive and aggressive, but that's not my focus here. That is the kind of thing that I think parents need to provide, and when they don't, I'm not sure that any school can systematically correct it. It looks like to me the kind of thing that takes dedicated, focused effort for each kid, not any kind of general algorithmic-type program.
My point is that, if anything like the Greek ideal is right, we are currently failing to provide the children of this country with any of the three general sorts of challenges that they require in order to grow into well-developed, happy adults.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What are the results of having "failed" to challenge kids, though?
Ok, maybe kids are a little tubbier, but as a trade off they are better at video games. So the physical is less "how much can I lift over my head" to "how many times can I push A in one second". And athletic achievement, even that which is not steroid-inspired, is growing.
Maybe we've lost a little bit in the "spirituality" (meaning religion) because of a decreased emphasis on organized religion. Or we've lost something in the way "moral and aesthetic" - though I'm not sure that's true. There is some pretty amazing art and culture that is being made and appreciated by the younger generation. I would probably agree that it's not "high art" or something that would be appreciated in a museum (yet), but it's damn good. And, by all accounts, architecture is only getting better. As for "moral" spirituality - aren't we just spot-lighting the rape and gender abuse and ignoring the fact that more women and minorities are in the workplace now than ever before.
As for intellectual growth - it seems hard to argue with the staggering pace of technology in recent years.
In other words, yeah, our education system can improve. And maybe it's a case of the good getting better and the bad stagnating or getting worse. But, I don't think there's evidence that it's getting worse overall; especially from post-high-school on. So, while "kids are kids" there's no evidence that they are turning into bad human beings (at least any greater of a rate than any other time).
So I guess I would disagree that we aren't providing children with the framework to have "good" productive lives.
I'll respond point by point:
Video games as "physical" challenges: Maybe Dance Dance but not button-mashing. I mean, just because you have to use a pencil doesn't make a crossword a physical challenge. Calling video games in general physical challenges pushes the meaning of the phrase beyond what I intended: I mean to refer to activities of a grosser physical sort, that requrie the use of the whole body and tend to contribute to physical health and well-being. It is this kind of activity that P.E. programs ought to be providing.
Religious spirituality: not at all what I'm talking about. I explicitly limited my discussion of moral virtue to what I called "civic" virtue. These are the reponsibilities one has in virtue of being a citizen in a participatory democracy, and that the state has an interest in instilling in its citizens because participatory democracies fail without active participants who have some of idea of what the process of government is.
Aesthetic stuff: I didn't really talk about this stuff, but while it may be true that some young people come up with good art, this doesn't mean that our kids in general are being exposed to art and music. These programs as well are being cut in our schools. Actually, this point applies to the claim that athletic achievement is growing: just because a few people who specialize in athletics are setting new records, this does not mean that the general population is showing improved athletic achievement. Just the opposite, in fact.
Technology growth: This is more a result of better methods than better schools, and again just because some specialists are doing well doesn't mean that we're providing enough science education to kids (which, in general, we're not). We are risking future stagnation because of our failure to educate enough of our kids well enough that they too could become specialists, so our pool of potential experts dwindles (those who, perhaps, went to private school or were lucky enough to be in the "right" school district).
So, overall point: Just because some young people may be excelling does not mean that our educational system is a good one. I worry about three trends:
1. the cutting of P.E. programs
2. the cutting of art and music programs
3. the change in teaching styles brought on by the need to "teach to the test"; this involves a move towards memorizing facts and away from teaching general critical thinking skills (including those involved in using the scientific method).
I think these 3 trends are terrible, and we are setting ourselves up to have a generation of comparatively unproductive people.
As an aside: I framed the original post in terms of the Greek ideal both because it was inspired by the conversation I mentioned, but also because the three specific negative trends happen to match up well with the three areas necessary for living a good life.
You need to give more info on what a greek ideal is.
Post a Comment