In every issue of FACCTS (the publication of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges), there has been a column by David Megill, my former colleague at MiraCosta and a wonderful advocate for faculty rights and independence, one of the first “edupunks” I ever encountered. In the Fall 2009 issue, instead of just Dave’s column, there was a Point-Counterpoint feature with Dave on one “side” and Rachel Winston on the other.
Megill argued that mass education itself is problematic, especially with its efforts to create “student learning outcomes” to apply to all courses and every student. He argued for “multileveled education not defined by arbitrary degrees.” In response, Winston argued that community colleges are there to provide access to all, precisely for those degrees, our “ticket” in society.
These ideas connect to the main paradox of community colleges: we are open access, yet provide transfer-level curriculum that takes the place of the first two years at university. Universities, of course, choose their students; we do not. So for those of us who teach transfer classes, can we provide the equivalent university experience? By law, we must, for everyone who comes: grades alone determine who is suited and who isn’t for academic work.
But the bigger question is whether we are here to provide “schooling” (with its requirements and degrees and accountability) or “education” (a meaningful experience of discovery for each student, something only that student can make useful in their lives). Megill is critical of “schooling” and wants “education”; Winston sees the value of “schooling” as an opportunity for all to possibly achieve in society.
And this connects to, interestingly enough, educational theory itself, particularly the new field of connectivism, pioneered by George Siemens and taught with Stephen Downes in the mondo CCK09 massive open online course. I was a member of CCK08 and tracked my learning in a blog. That class was clearly “education”, although I also got “schooling” credit. But the premise of connectivism itself was clearly “education”, and many of its adherents are anti-schooling.
As usual, I think we need a combination of both.
This clip from Teacher’s Pet (1958) — and indeed the whole film, regardless of how one feels about Clark Gable and Doris Day — brings the issue into relief. Gable is a high school drop-out, a die-hard experienced journalist (”newspaperman”) and Day is a college journalism instructor (at a night school, like community college). He has “education” in terms of practical experience, she has “schooling”, and each shares their point of view with the other. Each becomes changed as a result. Romantic nonsense aside, it’s a good film for highlighting these issues.
Tags: CCK09