Al-Khalili 1
Ahmed Al-Khalili
Ms. Tonya Tienter
English 250
19 November 2014
The Purpose of Education
Education is the tool with which we invest in the future. That is why people hold very
strong opinions on how we can improve education for a better future. Today, we examine three
perspectives, that of scientists, artists, and the low income community, who share their views on
the purpose of education.
Formal education has been around for about two centuries now and it is mostly
unchanged since then. Many argue that this is an outdated system was optimized to sustain the
industrial revolution. This led to holding the subjects that would further the industrial revolution
in high regard. Subjects that use the left brain, that can be directly applied and ones that have
practical uses are always at the apex of the educational hierarchy. Many demand reform in order
to make this system in line with the future’s demands, since students in elementary education
now will be retiring in over fifty years, this reform is necessary for the future of all people.
For scientists, it is not the hierarchy of the subjects that is of concern, rather the method
of teaching. They demand that teaching stops being a one-sided conversation, and it should
evolve into an interactive, practical lab setting in order to acclimate students for future scientific
endeavors. This gives students a better understanding of how things work if they choose to work
in a scientific field in their future.
The National Science Teachers Association, or NSTA, founded in 1944, is the largest
organization of science teachers in the world. NSTA gives a proposal regarding the way with
which science should be taught. “NSTA promotes a research agenda that is focused on the goal
of enhancing student learning through effective teaching practices and that effectively connects
research and practice” (NSTA 2010). To paraphrase, NSTA wishes to improve the way science
is taught within an academic setting by enrolling students into research. Together with teachers
and administrators, this will give students a better understanding of what to expect from a
scientific career, as well as know the logistics of thinking scientifically. Simply put, they make
part of education its own goal; to produce scientists with practical knowledge and objective
reasoning by starting the flame in the hearts of still-budding students.
Ask a toddler the question: ‘what will you be when you grow up?’ Some will say: “An
Astronaut!” Others will exclaim: “Fighter Pilot!” Some will shout: “Space Cowboy!” Simply put,
toddlers know very little of what these jobs constitute. Astronauts aren’t in a spacesuit every day,
fighter pilots don’t to the DMV for their license and space cowboys are just fiction. Taking these
same toddlers and putting them in the shoes of an astronaut, not when he is in space, but when he
is studying to go to space, would familiarize them more with their fantasy. Some students will
realize that the lead up to being in space is boring or unnecessary, while the adamant students
will look forward towards their futures with greater intent and youthful enthusiasm. The more
practical approach would act like a funnel to narrow down the students interests, while shutting
down the subjects where they do not see their future in, creating a customized learning
experience for every student and propelling them towards their niche job in the future.
No one denies the importance of science, but artists might argue that the entirety of our
educational system is dysfunctional when it comes to nurturing creativity. Sir Ken Robinson,
who wrote multiple books about finding one’s passion, and was former British government
leader of advisory committee on creative and cultural education, states just that in his Ted Talk
in February of 2006. He says that schools stifle creative growth in children by giving lower
priority to creative subjects such as dance, design, theatre or art classes. In his talk, he quotes the
artist, Pablo Picasso: “All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he
grows up.” By using this quote, Robinson supports his argument that the fire of creativity is not
only disregarded in school, but actively snuffed out in favor of nurturing more scientific mines.
A starting point for reform would be to change the Elementary and Secondary Act, also
known as the No Child Left Behind Act, from a greater focus on math and reading to an
unbiased focus. This first step would dissolve the hierarchical barrier between the two types of
subjects, while keeping them as options. In some schools, students are limited to only one quarter
or less in junior high and middle schools. By doing this, even teachers’ hands are held down.
Artists believe that this contradicts the purpose of education for future generations; students
should come out of schools as adapted as possible to the future where they will live most of their
lives, including those who choose art classes to start a career in art.
Another component for potential reform is to have an educational community, composed
of teachers, educators and even college professors, to be ready to take action against acts of
academic injustice in the future. The creative spirit in young students should not be at the mercy
of people with scientific outlooks on life. After all, it is only fair that all creative power is catered
to in a consistent manner.
While scientific and creative minds discuss reform in the educational system to
accommodate students of all inclinations, the low-income community simply wants better
schooling. Generally, students from low income families do not have access to a wide range of
educational facilities. Other than public schools in their immediate vicinity, their choices are
very limited. A study conducted by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, which is an institute that conducts rigorous evaluation of federal programs, showed
some troubling correlations with schools in low-income districts and many undesired facts.
The first statistic showed in the study is the percentage of students that are eligible for
free or reduced price lunches by district, ranking them from districts with low income, to districts
with higher income. As one might assume, students in low income districts are substantially
more likely to be eligible for help paying for their lunches. The list goes on and on, showing the
same correlation where students in higher wealth districts study in more favorable settings while
the students in low income districts get the short end of the stick; teacher performance, students
per teacher, student grades, etc. How does one go about solving this?
A potential solution might be paying students to come to school. As unnatural as it may
sound, it is the best possible kind of financial investment for a society. It is already done in some
European countries! If students were paid to learn, getting a dead end job would not be a positive
change in a student’s life. It is already happening in some countries in the world, and its
popularity is bound to bring bliss to the students and their families if it reaches schools in low
income areas. The fictional scenario where a father is screaming at his teenage son for not
dropping out of school to get a job would be turned around; school literally becomes a source of
income for the students and their families.
Aside from incentive to continue studying, the schools might accommodate some higher
education classes within their classrooms or in a collaboration with a nearby university or college.
The setting in a university or college is more ‘professional’ than that of a public school. No one
forces students to go to class, no one holds your hand, and no one gets mad when you never
handed your paper in; it is all on you. This teaches students the general etiquette when they
progress later in life. Even if students elect to stay out of university, they are better suited for a
professional career through better knowledge and life skills. This shifts the preconceived notions
about careers and the necessity for a higher level education, giving more options to those that
cannot afford it.
The purpose of education is not an objective matter. No one answer is correct, but finding
common ground to stand on for our future is imperative. Perhaps some parties will not get an
ideal result for their students, but a general improvement across the board will only serve to raise
the bar of education once again.
In hindsight, all of these perspectives yield positive results; every member of the
community that needs better accommodation has their needs met, while those who already have
what they need get a better experience that is more akin to their future jobs. Reform in our
education system would be an undoubted investment in our future, and our children, and what
better investment is there?
Works Cited
Freedman, Kerry. Leadership in Art Education: Taking Action in Schools and
Communities. Article. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association, 2011. Print.
Robinson, Ken. “How Schools Kill Creativity.” Online video clip. Ted.com. Ted, Feb.
2006. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
National Science Teachers Association. The Role of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning. Descriptive Report. Arlington, VA. Web Article.
National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. DO LOW-INCOME
STUDENTS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE HIGHEST-PERFORMING TEACHERS?
Data Report. Jessup, MD. Web Article.