Can rational dialogue transform Caribbean education?

By Oliver Mills




A Professor Emeritus at Simon Fraser University in Canada, Tasos Kazepides, has published an essay entitled “Education as Dialogue,” which summarises one of the central arguments of his recent book, Education as Dialogue: Its Prerequisites and Its Enemies.

The professor argues that the quality of our thinking is influenced by the quality of thinking in our social world. He characterises education as dialogue, and says that, unlike conversation, it is caring, engaging, and inseparable from reason.

For him, dialogue is the pursuit of truth and understanding, which give it direction and purpose. It also has to do with interpersonal communication, governed by the rules of reasoning, and having certain standards, with no predetermined destination.

Dialogue also has a serious, challenging and demanding character, and requires respect, trust, open-mindedness, and a willingness to listen, and to risk one’s own fixed beliefs, biases and prejudices in the pursuit of truth.

With dialogue, he argues, the aim is not to win an argument, but to advance human understanding and well being. Agreement is the result of conviction, and is not imposed.

Again, the professor states that some of the prerequisites of a genuine dialogue are the virtues of justice, honesty, respect for others, caring, and fair-mindedness. For him, dialogue is influenced by the cultural, political and economic conditions of society, and the education within it.

In relating dialogue to education, the professor states that the prerequisites of dialogue are also those of education, and that the principles of dialogue are at the foundations of a genuine educational curriculum.

Expanding on the idea of education as dialogue, he sees education as a form of free, open, informed dialogue among members of society and the education system, and as a planned dialogue between the generations about the human condition, and places it at the centre of all education, as the most effective means of teaching the young.

Education through dialogue is about character development, and the virtues of interpersonal relationships. The appropriate questions to be asked about education are therefore, what it means, its values, its place in society, and not what it aims at or for.

For the professor, education policy and practice are determined by the political and economic needs of society, rather than as an ideal of human development, and the vision of a good society. He further says that the public schools aim not at educating the young, but preparing them to serve the productive and reproductive needs of a competitive world.

Dialogue and education therefore emphasise the importance of understanding our world and each other, and the centrality of the intellectual standards, and moral virtues for individual and collective well being. He adds that nothing else will improve our educational institutions, and the character of our civilisation, so much as our efforts to cultivate genuine, rational dialogue within our schools, and within our world.

This essay by Professor Kazepides provides the missing link to what has avoided educators and educational systems, particularly within the Caribbean, which is the rational use of dialogue as an antidote to previous and current failures in our educational systems, and the achievement of transformation of those systems through the cultivation of certain virtues, which permeate the individual and societal consciousness through dialogue.

The writer is right when he says the quality of our thinking is influenced by the quality of thinking in the society. For, if a society is at a particular stage of development, then what moves it forward is the quality of ideas, experiences, and the reflection on these.

If the thinking quality leaves much to be desired, there will be little qualitative progress, and the result would be a somewhat stagnant civilisation. Education systems will remain underdeveloped, the status quo would continue, and the quality of life would deteriorate.

On the other hand, with quality thinking, there is quality progress that has an overall benefit to the individual and the collective as a whole. Society moves rapidly forward, and progress and development become the new norm. With low level thinking, there is stagnation, and the social and political system, along with education, will atrophy.

It is important then that, through dialogue, ideas, positions and beliefs are constantly challenged, and there is intellectual experimentation and innovation. This lifts the quality of our being, results in a creative society, and therefore a sustainable human system.

I agree with the professor that dialogue involves caring, engaging and is connected to reason, with the quest for truth and understanding as well as improving interpersonal communications as critical goals.

With societal dialogue, one becomes empathetic towards the other, and there is a linkage of minds and hearts. Abuse and emotionalism are non-existent, since a greater essence is being sought which is truth, even if tentatively held, since new developments in knowledge and understanding could present greater evidence of something different. Here, respect and trust become paramount, and the collective search for an education system which transforms, and which is being continuously improved is fostered.

With this rational approach, devoid of privileging any particular position, avenues are fostered for greater and newer experiences and innovations.

Connected to this is the ability to listen and be open-minded. This means that when educational officials meet to dialogue about the issues, it is beyond the level of just being simply a conversation. There is free, open and informed dialogue, with no interest in having a winner.

The winners are the education system and a more qualitative and informed understanding by the individual. Consensus is by conscious choice, based on the quality of the dialogue, and is not imposed by an authority. It is willing and non-coerced consent. Through dialogue as education, a quality character is formed, based on values and agreed standards.

Too often in the Caribbean, authoritarianism and diktat usurp truth and reason. It is almost sacrilege to disagree with the principal, for fear of incurring his anger, and possible sanctions.

Also at the ministry of education level, education as dialogue, and the values embedded in it, should result in positive interest by those involved, a commitment to give each person a fair hearing, and dialogue about the issues based on the arguments presented and not the personalities concerned.

In practice, this is often not the case. Responses are often tepid in meetings. There is the feeling that it is impolitic to challenge certain views, although if we allow them to go forward they could be detrimental to the system. Promotion and being a member of the inner circle could also be compromised. With this, the truth becomes a casualty, and the unworkable, inefficient system persists.

Even where the curriculum is concerned, there is hardly any serious dialogue about the meaning of education, its values, and its place in society. It is not about what it aims at, or what it is for. This is a very important observation. In order to have an education system that works, we have to know what it all means and the values we are endeavouring to promote. Also, considerations about its place in the society need to be dialogued about.

This lays the groundwork for considerations of how this new approach to education could be used to transform character, introduce values such as kindness, being considerate, exercising care and compassion, and being fair and just. These values are embedded in the curriculum, through dialogue, and result in a transformed educational system through the curriculum.

In this sense, education is not preparation to serve the productive needs of society. It is about the promotion of understanding and effectively communicating to promote civilised interaction. The intellectual standards and moral virtues are integral to this new perspective on education, which promotes our collective well being. The productivity and other connecting elements of what materially moves a society at another dimension will come from this new and different emphasis on the meaning of education, and the values accompanying it.

This new intellectual and moral focus concerning what education means, rather than what it aims at, or is for, reconstitute the whole psychology of educators, schools, and the society as a whole.

This means that all of the previous inefficiencies and failures the Caribbean education system has been experiencing become a thing of the past. In its place is a new system with new values and a different orientation brought about by education as dialogue, and the moral and ethical dispositions that emerge and result from it.

Education therefore becomes a moral enterprise, and not an instrument serving the productive and reproductive needs of society, but rather fosters the kind of individual with the right understanding and moral virtues. We therefore have a better society, and a more civilised world.

Professor Kazepides therefore provides a rational paradigm and blueprint for the use of dialogue as an important and critical plank in transforming an educational system and the individuals that operate it. His arguments are straightforward, logical, and incisive. Most importantly they make sense.

This use of rational dialogue by the Caribbean educational establishment, could therefore introduce a new transformative element into the educational system and society, based on values, moral dispositions, logical analysis, trust, respectful listening, and fair-mindedness.

Education therefore becomes dialogue in action, which fashions a new human person, who in turn creates a new educational order and society.

April 21, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The recurring dilemma in Caribbean education

By Oliver Mills


Caribbean education, throughout its history, has faced an ever recurring dilemma, which is how to so structure and manage the education system to get the maximum results. But most importantly of all, how to design a system that gets rid of the historical dichotomy between catering mainly for a small, academic elite, while the majority of students leave school without the requisite number of subjects to pursue further education.

This issue is taken up by Rosina Wiltshire, who is reported in the Caribbean News Now of March 23, 2011, as saying that the education system in the region caters to the one third academic elite, while the remaining 67 percent leave school with two or less certificates, and with little option for technical, vocational and skills training, and so are viewed as failures, and see themselves as such.

This challenge to the Caribbean system has both philosophical and managerial roots. From its very inception, the school system in the Caribbean was structured around a certain type of education for one set of persons, who would later proceed to the professions, and another set that would engage in physical endeavour. Hence the distinction between an academic and practical education.

Primary education was designed for the lower classes, while a secondary or high school education, was for an elite. The private primary and high schools fostered an elite clientele, based on the ability to pay, and better teachers and resources, while the primary or public school system catered for the masses of the population, with comparably less resources, and teachers who were not well paid.

Those high school leavers who attained the requisite number of subjects proceeded to university, while those who had insufficient subjects, either went to technical and vocational establishments, or were exposed to skills and vocational training of varying quality. In the independence era, some Caribbean governments tried to democratise education, by structuring the system to accept more primary graduates into high schools, and many of these have done well. Some governments attempted this by converting certain institutions into high schools, to facilitate this increased number. And recently, in many instances, some of these newly established institutions have either performed on par with, or gotten better results than the traditional grammar schools. Vocational schools of various types have also been established, in order to facilitate better opportunities for students, and to supply the needs of the job market.

But why is it that, even in the era of independence, and the further democratisation of education, there are still institutions that produce an elite, and those that cater for another social class? It all has to do with the philosophical perception that there were certain persons who were endowed with an academic ability, while the majority was only fit for physical labour. This perception was also related to the socio-economic background of persons, in essence, a class analysis of capability and competence. The education system, therefore, was a replica of the class system in the society. The school therefore reproduced the social relationships that already existed in the wider society.

Education was therefore the instrument that decided where persons were placed in the social hierarchy. It determined who held what kind and quality of job, who the elites were, and who exercised power and influence. It was, and continues to remain an elite that determined what goods were produced, and services rendered in the wider society. Those who were deemed to posses less abilities became the consumer class.

The situation was further compounded by the fact that, although some Caribbean governments sought at various times to either make education free at all levels, it was not sustainable for many countries. But although there was greater access, those from the privileged classes continued to be the greatest beneficiaries, because of the types of schools they initially attended. Higher education, with its degree structure and grading mechanism, further ensured that only a minority got the requisite grades to graduate with top honours. In fact, in many school systems outside the Caribbean, many high schools only accept teachers with an honours degree. This ensures the same quality of product.

Even in the technical schools, there are divisions between technical, vocational and skills training, although there should be no distinctions, since no matter what it is called, skills remain the critical tools to be acquired. In some of these technical schools, students even do different examinations, and there are also perceptual differences and levels of recognition of particular courses that are offered. This even happens in higher education, where the humanities are seen as less rigorous than the social or natural sciences.

The point is, that it does not matter what the level of education is, primary or higher, there is the perception that some schools are better than others, and some programmes are preferred to others, and seen as superior. Even though in the technical and vocational areas, it is said that graduates of these programmes are financially better off, yet the class system determines that culture, reflected in the academic areas is the pivot of achievement. All of these factors re-enforce the idea, that an academic education is better than a technical or vocational education, although a gradual change in perception is taking place.

But what can be done to change this perception, which allows a gulf between various kinds of educational provisions? In one country outside the Caribbean, all of those institutions beyond the secondary level offering a technical education were granted university status. However in many circles, the retention of the term ‘technical’ seemed to denote inferiority. The institutions were therefore granted full university status, without the term ‘technical’ being a part of its name. What happened though, is, that although they continued to offer technical subjects, other arts, social sciences and management programmes were added, apparently to bolster their image as serious institutions. In addition, lecturers who could not get jobs at the more traditional institutions, were recruited to these institutions. This had the effect of tilting the balance again away from technical to an academic education.

Even in the area of political leadership, the type of school a person attended gives the stamp of eligibility for high office. There was a prime minister of one country with a degree in the natural sciences, whose intellectual abilities were highly questioned. This was because high political office was, and is still seen as the province of persons who studied law, management studies, social sciences,’ and even medicine. The point is, that academic ability and competence are still seen as being embedded in academic subjects, and the other technical areas are perceived as not producing the kind of intellectual and academic competence as these areas. The technical areas are still seen as being ‘hands on’ although exposure to technical areas does not rule out the ability to formulate alternatives, or to reason logically. It is not just the use of the hands.

To dissolve the distinction between an academic and vocational and technical education, Caribbean governments need to undertake serious efforts to educate their publics that it does not matter which type of school is attended, or which subjects are offered, that everyone receives a quality education irrespective of the level of that education. Again, accreditation criteria should be put into effect both nationally and internationally to give credence and credibility to the programmes that are offered, so that there is both regional and international equivalence of programmes, and no one feels cheated.

Also there should be a healthy mix between the academic and technical in all programme areas, as computer science shows, so that arts or social science subjects could be done as part of any programme, with the latter still retaining its quality and legitimacy. Furthermore, the subjects must be taught in such a way that a clear linkage is demonstrated between them, and not as separate areas. If the linkage is not shown, the dichotomy between the areas would be further strengthened.

In a final sense, ministries of education in the Caribbean need to formulate and advance a clear philosophy of education, which dispenses with division and distinction, and advocates the interrelationship of subject areas. The value, and values embedded in the subjects should be brought to the forefront, so that the equality factor is demonstrated and adhered to. In addition, a consciousness raising campaign should be waged by the educational establishment, stressing the ethical content and solutions orientation of the subjects offered at any level of the system.

These measures would serve to break down and dissolve any prejudices against certain subjects and institutions with respect to their value, and contribute to bringing about equality not only among institutions, but also in the wider society.

April 7, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International