Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Australia’s declining education results expose a deeper ideological divide over learning, human nature and responsibility, raising questions about the foundations shaping our schools and society.

Once again, poor results from our international test results are in the headlines, although there are different interpretations of how poor those outcomes may or may not be.

Some might suggest that we are still not as bad as many other countries in literacy, numeracy and science. Others point to the direction of the results over the last decade — and that direction is down, particularly in Mathematics.

Competing Educational Philosophies

At the centre of that debate are ideological arguments about what it means: to be student-centred; what the role of the teacher is; whether there can be generic critical thinking skills without good knowledge being learnt first; and that socio-economic influences are the major determinant of educational outcome.

That is, the debate is about assumptions of who we are as people, who we are as learners, and what is a just society. These assumptions carry important deep lessons within them, before any content learning even commences.

For example, those educators with what are called ‘progressivist’ commitments would commonly respond to the above four ideological questions in the following way:

1. Students learn better if they decide what they want to study;
2. The teacher is to be a facilitator, or a fellow journeyman, with the students;
3. Information is readily available, so there is no need to learn it by heart – just teach how to use it; and
4. Engage not in progress by merit, but by social need or categorisation.

However, these responses are based on assumptions about human beings having a basic goodness in their natures — such that any problems that students have are because of the adults and society ‘getting it wrong’. And, of course, there is a kernel of truth in this.

But that, for the Christian, is only part of the story. For them, they also believe that there is a problematic inherent desire to determine what is right and wrong based on their individual feelings — and that the direction of these decisions takes us further away from living the way our Creator made us to live.

How Christian Beliefs Shape Teaching and Learning

In contrast to the responses above, a Christian approach to education would point to:

1. Introducing students to the best content that has helped the world most — which is Biblically sound information that accords with the truth about reality as revealed in the Christian Scripture;
2. The teacher is therefore in a position of responsibility and authority to ensure all students have opportunities to learn essential core knowledge about our world, including each other and our Creator;
3. Rehearsing core information strengthens brain memory and mind reasoning, which is the platform for becoming more expert; and
4. All students can be encouraged and invited to improve, regardless of their starting points — and if they are in a faith community with a personal abiding faith, that will be, on average, a stronger indicator of completion at a good level than any socio-economics (as per the research by Ilana Horwitz’s God, Grades and Graduations).

The observational correlations at the school level and at the international level strongly suggest that, on average, the second approach leads to better results.

Why then do leaders cling so often to the first approach?

Answer: ideology does not operate by reason alone. It represents our faith, or that in which we put our faith. If we want to believe humans are only basically good, then all the problems they have must be with the social context in which they live. This leads to a lesser emphasis on taking responsibility for how to respond to our starts to life — indeed, it suggests that all we need to do is identify where we are victims, and insist (demand) that society change around us.

Feeding Our Souls With Truth, Not Error

We then read, listen to and watch material that feeds our soul in that direction. Our souls develop according to what we feed them. Thus, faith beliefs become continually reinforced, unless, of course, the soul is exposed to a different soul food.

But this exposure can be a bit like trying a new food. For example, this evening I was offered “jackfruit”. I was uncertain (and already very full). But I had a taste — my verdict = 3 or 4 out of 10, although I did note a certain palette cleansing effect after a while. The locals loved it, and were keen to have more. Their taste buds had become accustomed to the fruit, and they had developed enough delight to ask for more. Me — not so much.

If we want to avoid being compliant — even unintentionally — with ungodly ideas, we need to feed our souls with food that is in accord with God’s reality. When we do this well, others will see the difference, and perhaps, just perhaps, have a harder look at why.

This was the challenge given to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 4, that in effect describes God explaining, “Come and live differently. Live as I have made you to live. Then other nations will ask ‘why?’ And you will tell them because your God is near.”

Or, as Jesus explained it: go and live as preserving agents and as direction pointers in the place I put you.

What soul food will we provide to be the salt and light in our places?

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.