This argument was put forward by Rousseau and further elaborated by Dewey. "Education is growth" simply expresses the original meaning of education, which is to make everyone's nature and innate ability grow healthily, rather than instilling external things such as knowledge into a container.
Socrates pointed out long ago that seeking knowledge is an innate ability in everyone's soul. The wise men at that time claimed that they could instill knowledge that was not in the soul. Socrates sneered, as if they could put their eyesight into the eyes of the blind.
Knowing the truth that "education is growth", we also know what education should do. For example, intellectual education is to cultivate curiosity and rational thinking ability, not to instill knowledge; Moral education is to encourage lofty spiritual pursuit, not to instill norms; Aesthetic education is to cultivate rich souls, not to instill skills.
"Growth is the purpose, and there is no other purpose except growth", especially against using a narrow utilitarian scale to measure education. Even if people admit that "education is growth", they must set an external purpose for growth, such as adapting to society, seeking a career and achieving something in the future, as if without such efforts, growth would be worthless.
Standardizing growth with utilitarian goals will inevitably suppress growth. Are we still sure that "education is growth"? Is growth itself worthless? Isn't a person who is naturally healthy and developed both excellent and happy? That is to say, it is easier for such people to achieve real success in society by using utilitarian measures-broad rather than narrow?
Judging from the situation of the whole society, as Luo Su pointed out, a society composed of men and women with excellent nature will certainly be much better than the opposite. Children are not immature adults, and childhood has its intrinsic value.
Standardizing education for utilitarian purposes and ignoring the value of growth itself is the most direct and harmful result of denying the intrinsic value of childhood. Seeing children as "future existence", an immature adult seems to be of little value before "growing up". The only goal of education is to prepare children for future adult life. This misunderstanding has a long history and is widely spread.
The idea of "growing up" is ridiculous in itself, as if children are not human before they grow up! Montessori first explicitly criticized this concept and established her theory of children's education on the basis of affirming the value of children's personality.
Dewey also pointed out that childhood has its inherent quality and significance, and it should not be regarded as an immature stage in life, just want to let it pass quickly.
Every stage of life has its own irreplaceable value, and no stage is just preparing for another stage. Childhood, in particular, is the most important stage of physical and mental growth, and it should also be the happiest time in life. The greatest merit that education can achieve is to give children a happy and meaningful childhood, thus creating a good foundation for their happy and meaningful life.
However, today's general situation is that the whole adult world has imposed its own small utilitarian goals on children, driving them to fight on the utilitarian battlefield. I'm worried that in their future life, in the society a few years later, the consequences of being brutally deprived of the value of childhood will appear in a terrible way. The purpose of education is to free students from the slavery of reality, not to adapt to reality.
This is Cicero's famous saying. Today, the situation is just the opposite. Education is trying to do one thing, that is, to shape students with the goal of adapting to reality.
It is of course necessary for people to live in society and adapt to reality, but this should not be the main purpose of education.
Montaigne said: learning is not to adapt to the outside world, but to enrich yourself. Confucius also advocated that learning is a matter of "for oneself" rather than "being a man". Philosophers of all ages have emphasized that learning is to develop one's inner spiritual ability, so as to gain freedom in the face of external reality. Of course, this is only an inner freedom, but it is with this inner freedom, this independent personality and the ability to think independently that those excellent souls and minds have played a huge role in changing the reality of human society.
Education should create conditions for promoting inner freedom and cultivating excellent souls and thoughts. If we just adapt to reality, what about education! The most important educational principle is not to cherish time, but to waste it.
This sentence comes from Rousseau's mouth, and many of us have heard it in our ears today. This is a fallacy. However, Rousseau had his reasons.
If education means growth, the mission of education should be to provide the best environment for growth. What is the best environment? The first is free time, the second is a good teacher. In Greek, school means leisure. According to the Greeks, students must have enough time to experience and meditate in order to develop their mental abilities freely.
Rousseau defended his shocking theory, saying, "Misusing time is more costly than wasting time, and children with wrong education are farther away from wisdom than children without education." Today, many parents and teachers are afraid that their children will waste their time, forcing them to finish endless homework and not letting them have time to play, thinking that this is the responsibility of parents and teachers. Rousseau asks you: What is waste? What is happiness? Jumping around all day is nothing. If meeting the requirements of nature is a waste, let them be wasted.
At the university stage, free time is even more important. In my opinion, there can be no good teachers, but there must be no free time. In the final analysis, all education is self-education and all learning is self-learning. This is especially true in the growth of mental ability.
I agree with john henry: For intelligent students with basic education, it is best to have neither teachers nor exams in universities, so that they can freely dabble in the library. I want to sigh with Bernard Shaw that the bookshelves all over the world are full of spiritual delicacies, but students are forced to chew on those boring textbooks without nutrition. Forget everything you have learned in class, and the rest is education.
I first saw this sentence in Einstein's article, which was a punch line that he didn't quote by name. Later, I found out that it was probably born out of Whitehead's argument, to the effect that only by throwing away textbooks and handouts and forgetting the details memorized for the exam, can the rest be valuable.
The details of knowledge are easy to forget, and once needed, they are easy to find in books. Therefore, it is laborious and worthless to focus on memorizing the details of knowledge. Suppose you forget everything you learned in class. If there is nothing left, it means that you have been educated for nothing.
What education should leave behind, in Whitehead's words, is the principle that completely permeates your body and mind, a habit of intellectual activities, a lifestyle full of learning and imagination, and in Einstein's words, the overall ability to think and judge independently. According to my understanding, in layman's terms, a person has since become a hopeless thinker and scholar. No matter what career you are engaged in in in the future, you can't change your habits and hobbies of learning, thinking and research, and you can admit that you have received a college education. Universities should be places where masters gather, so that young people can grow up under the influence of masters.
The essence of education is not to impart knowledge, but to cultivate the habit of intellectual activities and the ability to think independently. Obviously, these intellectual qualities cannot be taught like knowledge, and the only way to cultivate them is to be influenced by people with these qualities, who can generally be called masters.
The master is in two places, one is on the bookshelf of the library, and the other is in the university, which should be the place where the living masters gather. As Whitehead said, the reason why universities exist is that a group of imaginative scholars who explore knowledge will affect students' intellectual development and bridge the gap between mature wisdom and enthusiasm for life, otherwise universities will not exist.
Lin Yutang said more vividly: the ideal university should be a dining place with extraordinary personality. Here I met a Newton, a Fruit, a Russell in the East Room and a Lasky in Westinghouse. The front yard is Hui's study and the backyard is Dai Dongyuan's house. He stressed that "eating place" is not a case. These masters have no obligation to the school except to eat. The school pays them to live on campus so that students can communicate with them and be influenced by them. For example, the great professors in Oxford and Cambridge smoked pipes, talked about life and knowledge, and the quality of students was "smoked".
Today's universities are competing to advertise the so-called "world-class universities" and have drawn up various hard indicators. In fact, the matter is very simple: the most difficult indicator is teachers. A university is a first-class university with a group of first-class scholars with noble hearts and wisdom. Otherwise, no matter how big the school building is, no matter how magnificent the building is and no matter how advanced the equipment is, it will be no use. Teachers should regard students as an end rather than a means.
This is Russell's principle of correct teacher-student relationship. He pointed out that the essential quality of an ideal teacher is to love his students, and the reliable sign of love is to have a wide range of parental instincts, just as parents think that children are the purpose and students are the purpose. He emphasized that teachers should love their students more than their country and church. In view of today's situation, I add that it should be better than loving money and fame. Today, some teachers take fame and fortune as their sole purpose, and blatantly regard students as a means to gain fame and fortune.
Whether a teacher personally loves students depends on the teacher's moral character. In order for most teachers in schools to regard students as an end rather than a means, it is necessary to establish a student-oriented education system. The reason why students are regarded as a means is because teachers have too much power to decide students' promotion and graduation.
So I agree with Einstein's suggestion that teachers should be given as little power as possible to use coercive means, and the only source of students' respect for them is his humanity and rational quality. Correspondingly, it is to expand the rights of students, especially research students. Within the scope of the syllabus, they are free to choose teachers and courses, change classes and be smart. The assessment of teachers should also mainly depend on whether they are loved by students, not by administrative departments.
As it is now, teachers who have the ability to spend a lot of money on scientific research have the right to recruit more students and let them work for themselves, otherwise they will suffer indignities and even be deprived of the right to take students. Under this system, how can students not become means?