Education is much larger than mere schooling and practical skills that would equip one to be an efficient worker in a corporate economy.

Introduction

Education has been one of the prime concerns of any civilized society (Education comes from two Greek words educare - meaning to draw out - and educere – physical development). However, it is not understood the same by all. For some, education is the accumulation of knowledge; while for others, it is learning of skills required to sustain one’s life in the competitive world; and still for a few, it is the process that enables the holistic development of the person.

We observe two trends of thought that dominate the life of our modern society. One hails ‘realism’ calling on man to be realistic (what matters in life is material well-being. Education should aim at developing in man the necessary skills to make a living) and the other advocates a kind of cold passion for knowledge in the name of academic competence. Both the trends have got serious ramifications for the society at large. Even as the number of the so called ‘literates’ increase steadily, there is a severe threat to life in society – violence and corruption, to name a few. It is in this context, we come to the stunning realization that education is neither only schooling – as most people think and send their children tuition centers to schools and from schools to tuition centers – nor mere learning of skills, technical or otherwise, to earn the living. It is larger than any one aspect of life.

 History

Education as a human activity is not a recent phenomenon. It has its long history. A brief look at the history of education both in the West and the East can offer insights to understand and enhance the process of education today.

The History of Education in the West

The foundation of the Western education can be traced back in the Greek thought. The Greeks were concerned about the philosophical issues such as being and becoming, truth and falsity, and alike. However, the Spartans differed form the Athenians in their understanding of education. While the Spartans considered education in terms of training their citizens in warfare, the Athenians concentrated on civil administration and duties. The sophists made a significant impact especially, in the city states by teaching citizens to argue cleverly to win the argument.

Socrates: He is one of the celebrated philosophers from Athens whose view on education runs contrary to that of Sophists. He held that education is not all about wining an argument by clever speech but to know one’s true self. Knowledge exists within each one of us and all that we need to do is to bring it out. A teacher is a kind of a mid-wife who assists the student in bringing out what’s within the student. Socrates was concerned about the universal principles of truth, beauty and goodness. He held that knowledge is virtue (however, this claim of Socrates can well be refuted).

Plato: Education is neither a means for the accumulation of riches nor the mere cleverness one exhibits. It is that which makes man to pursue the ideal perfection of citizenship. It is universal (not restricted only to the guardian class) and compulsory, no matter whether the parents wish it or not.  Pupils primarily belong to the state and not to the family. Plato established the Academy for learning.

Aristotle: He held that education should help man to make decisions to lead a life of moderation and avoid dangerous extremes.

Romans: Having conquered vast territories of land, Romans were in need of men to administer the different provinces. Education was considered as a means to prepare leaders to govern and administer the provinces.

Medieval times: with the emergence of Christianity as the state religion of the Western empires, the concern of education turned to God and truth about Him.

Renaissance and Reformation: It altered the outlook of the medieval times with the emphasis on humanistic features such as art, literature and architecture. Martin Luther made the religious teachings easily accessible to all by instructing people in the vernacular languages.

Modern and Contemporary thinkers

Rousseau: Among the modern philosophers Rousseau is one of the well known philosophers on education. He was disgusted with the artificiality that formal education produced in man. He sought to bring about correct and clear thought in his students through sensory and motor training in and with nature.

Pestalozzi: He is yet another thinker who considered education as the process that brings about what is moral in man. He gave utmost importance to liberty, nature, democracy, science and technology.

Froebel: For him education is that which enables one to unfold the inherent personality of the child. Education is both an endowment (nature) and environmentally conditioned (nurture). It is in freedom this within outward process is carried out.

Dewey: his contribution to the field of education is immense. He considers education as the preparation for full life. School is a model society wherein the students learn not only to spell words but also live responsibly. His educational method is more pragmatic.

J.P. Sartre: Education is not just learning to read. Education should be concerned about the here and now of man’s existence and must make him freer. He says that traditional method of education is a kind of neutrional approach.

Freire: He considers education to be a non-neutral act. It either makes one more human (humanizes) or dehumanizes. Since humanization is our ontological vocation we cannot accept anything that dehumanizes. Education should make us critically aware of what happen within and without. Knowledge is not only power it is also responsibility (praxis). In dialoguing we come to know. The educator and the educatee need to learn from one another (teacher-student with the student-teacher).

Education in the East (India)

Vedic Age: Religion was the mainspring of all activities in Vedic times. The study of Vedic literature was indispensable (for the higher castes). The aim of all knowing was to attain mukti, i.e., emancipation/liberation. All-round development of the student was stressed (four ashramas).

The age of Reaction or Buddhist and Jain Thought: Buddhism and Jainism reacted against the Brahmanic supremacy of knowledge. Both Mahavira and Buddha taught their principles of religion to all in the native tongues. Buddhism also introduced monastic system of education with the aim of imparting education and training men as Buddhist monks. Education must help one to know the dhamma, form the character and attain Nirvana.

Islamic Period: Among the Mogul rulers Akbar deserves to be mentioned for his commitment to education. He was aware of the possibilities education can bring to the prosperity of the empire and the citizens. He introduced mass education, built libraries and schools throughout his kingdom (Mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy were taught).

The age of colonization: education was considered as a means to prepare men to serve the colonizers. The native language and methods of learning were sidelined. However, education also aimed at culling out social evils of the native societies (sati, child marriage).

Modern and Contemporary thinkers

1. Tagore: He was against all bookish learning. Education is not primarily a means for livelihood but one of personal fulfillment and self-improvement. Earning for one’s livelihood is a lesser aim. He promoted nature-centric education (Shanti Niketan). Education is all round development of the person.

2. Swami Vivekananda: Education is the process of man-making (character-building). It should bring out the perfection already within the person. Learning is discovering what lies within. It is a life-long process.

3. Gandhi: Education is not the knowledge of letters. The popular education alienates the student from his environment with useless information. Education should concern itself with character-building. Value education occupies a prominent place in Gandhian thought. He held that the integral life of the teacher plays a vital role in the education of pupils. Education should be a self-supportive venture (spinning wheel).

4. Aurobindo: Education should deal with the spirit of man. Three things matter: 1. The uniqueness of the individual student 2. The commonness 3. The society. He envisaged a sort of integral education. The ultimate aim of education is the realization of the self. A teacher is a helper not an imposer.

5. J. Krishnamurthi: Education is a preparation for the fullest development of the human person. Mere transmission of knowledge harms both the learner and the society. The child should be free to learn. The teachers and students are learners in life because both of them aim at inner liberation. We need to know ourselves; others cannot shape our lives.

Proposed Solution

1. Naturalism (Rousseau, Tagore and others)

It aimed at making education free from the bondage of rigid discipline under which children hardly had any freedom (idealism).  Education is not a formal training but a natural process. Children learn more from nature than in the class rooms. Initiative and self-reliance are valued. Everyone's unique interests are respected and differences are valued. 

Education is creative venture (activities). Knowledge is not transmission of information; information becomes knowledge only when it is judged to be relevant. Spontaneity (noble savage – Rousseau) and integral growth of the individual (Tagore) are the paramount concerns of naturalism.

Curriculum: There is no imposition of knowledge. We cannot have fixed curriculum for all to follow. Each student has got the potentiality to learn what one is fascinated about. However, for the practical purposes we could have curriculum but it should take into account the views and needs of the pupils. Science and art must be encouraged besides drawing students’ attention to physical and ethical training.

Teachers: Children learn by self-activity. Teachers are a kind of facilitators and observers who create a right environment for students to learn. They do not dictate or impose.

2. Rational Humanism (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas)

 The essence of human nature is its rational character. Man is different from the brutes because of his rationality. Human nature is the same everywhere. Since rationality is the essence of man, the principal aim of education must necessarily be intellectual; because human nature remains the same everywhere and always, the aim of education must be the same. Differences and preferences have their place but they are accidental.

Curriculum: Must make a difference between essentials and non-essentials. Take into consideration only the essentials.

Teacher: he is a guide in forming the rational character.

3. Progressive Humanism (Paulo Freire, Jiddu Krishnamurthi, Myles Horton, Jonathan Kozal and others)

It holds that education is never a neutral act. It either frees or enslaves man. We are called to be more fully human by making and re-making our world responsibly. We are incomplete beings in need of going onward all the time. Education, hence, must help us in our concern for the ontological vocation. An educated man is not one who knows many things rather the one who critically evaluates what he has learnt and acts accordingly. Knowledge is not a possession rather a passion for humanization.

Curriculum: curriculum should not be foreign to that of students’ situatedness. It should address the concerns of facticity of the students. In the formation of the curriculum the views and concerns of the students must be kept in mind.

Teacher: There is no one who knows everything; neither is there someone who is absolutely ignorant. Teachers are facilitators not imposers. The teacher learns from the students as the students learn from the teacher. Dialogue governs the educational process.

3. Existentialism (Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Eric Fromm, Sartre, Gandhi and others)

 It is concerned with the authentic existence of man in and with the world (Heidegger). Education must help us to know the meaning of our existence (Gandhi, Jaspers). It should cultivate love for life (biophiliac) tendencies (Fromm). Mere accumulation of information is of no use (Sartre).

Differences should be valued and respected. Existence of man and his dignity is of paramount importance to the existential thinkers.

Curriculum: It should not alienate the pupils from their historicity. It must take into account the interests of the individual members. Curriculum must include all aspects of life not only the intellectual or technical.

Teachers: The authentic witness of the teachers enhances the educational practice. He is more than a informer or lecturer.

4. Idealism (Pestallozi, Vivekananda)

The purpose of education is to contribute to the development of the mind and self of the student. Besides the intellectual activities, moral judgments, aesthetic sense, self-realization, individual freedom, responsibility, and self-control are to be considered.

Curriculum: It is based on the assumption that man has a spiritual nature. The curriculum must include those subjects essential for the realization of mental and moral development. The subject matter should be the same for all.

Teacher: He must be competent enough to teach as well as morally sound so as to inspire the students. He must challenge the pupils with great ideas.

5. Pragmatism (John Dewey)

Education is the development of all those capacities in the individual which will enable him to control the environment and fulfill his potentials. It has got both psychological and sociological dimensions. Education is a life-long process. The pupil does not grow when the anti-social elements are active. Education should lead one from dependence to full participation in personal and socio-political life.

Curriculum: There are not a priori scheme of values. The pragmatist approach to curriculum is a project method. The contents of learning are considered from the child’s point of view. The pupils are given some real problems and they need to solve them (problem-solving approach).

Teacher: the pupil learns by doing. The function of school and the teachers is to provide an appropriate environment.

Objections and answers:

1. Children’s/pupils’ interests are notorious. If we leave them to do what they wish to do they will probably not grow or become useless. Hence we need a rigorous discipline and teachers must tell them what they should do.

It is true that pupils’ interests are notorious at times. What they need is accompaniment. Barring of their freedom or activities does not help them to be creative. Imposition makes one naïve and uncritical. It does not achieve the desired results of human functioning.

2. It seems a common sense point of view that education is primarily concerned with the world of here and now. What we need at present is high marks and skills to make a living. Hence, there is no point in speaking about abstract things in education.

Schooling and skill training have got their places in the process of education. But, education cannot be restricted with these two alone, for the simple fact that we are human and not animals. Human nature demands that besides our concern for the here and now, we also foresee and act. Life cannot be fragmented. It is one whole. Everything matters in life. What we should aim is the integral (physical, spiritual and moral) development of the person.

3. Education is a neutral act. Teachers do not take sides in any issue. It has nothing to do with what happens outside, politics or anything.

This objection does not stand the test of reason. Education can never be a neutral act. It either helps someone to become better or worse. We are not individuals existing in the clouds having nothing to do with what go on around us. We are persons interconnected in the web of relationships. What happens in the society affects us for better or worse. Education, hence, should prepare men of character to lead integral lives.

 Personal synthesis

Education concerns the whole human person.  Neither the intellect (mere learning/schooling) nor the hands alone (skills) are the exclusive agents of learning. Education when understood as mere schooling or learning of skills to make a living can drive us mad. What we need is the integral development of the person. It should form the character. It is not all about know how of things but learning to be reasonable and responsible for oneself and the society at large. It is not pre-packaged and given in the class rooms rather it evolves in our encounter with people. It is much larger than schooling and practical know-how of things; it concerns life and its all aspects (physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual…).