|
I take as my starting point
the materials that were sent to me. They imply a deficiency in the
general education programs of some of this state's most well known
public institutions. That in turn implies the need for reform. But
what do we mean by reform? I suggest we keep in mind G.K.
Chesterton's definition: "it means that we see a certain thing
out of shape and we mean to put it into shape. And we know what
shape."
Well, what should the shape
of the core be?
Traditionally, the core has
been the means by which our young men and women are educated, as
opposed to being trained. This distinction between education and
training is of critical importance, for it is impossible to
understand the purposes of general education, which includes liberal
learning, without grasping the difference between gathering
information and technique, and discursive learning. But it is
important to understand that the distinction does not imply any
criticism of training, whether pre-professional or professional,
whether it be, say pre-med or pre-law or accounting or engineering.
We need competent people in all walks of life.
But while we work for a
living, we do not live to work. Thus to educate exclusively for the
world of work, even when it is done intelligently and
comprehensively, is to educate for the necessary but not for the
sufficient conditions of living life well. For this our students
need to learn a great deal more about themselves and the world they
live in than is provided for by their disciplinary training.
Anything less really doesn't qualify as a college education. As Bill
Allen, Director of the State Council of Higher Education for
Virginia has put it, "A college education doesn't amount to a
hill of beans unless it gives students the ability to look at
themselves with a penetrating, critical eye, to understand why they
stand where they stand and why they do what they do." Well, we
do want college to amount to a "hill of beans." We want it
to be an experience that helps the citizens of this state to live as
fully human lives as their informed capacities make possible.
All this speaks to the good
of the student. But what about the good of the community? Of
Virginia, and of the nation? Simply put, the "good" or
"product" that democracy expects out of higher education -
in addition, of course, to well trained workers and professionals -
is an adequate preparation for one's civic responsibilities.
We live in a democratic
republic. A republic is a form of government in which the most
important decisions about ourselves as a community are public
decisions. And this means we must give our young people the tools of
democracy: the ability to think clearly about important
alternatives, to make decisions that are best for the whole as well
as for themselves individually, and to restrain their public
appetites just as they must, if they are to live well, restrain
their private appetites. And this too, is part of what general
education or the core curriculum is all about.
What are its components?
Since the end of liberal education, preparation for life, both
public and private, raises questions about what the good life is
(and even whether it is the same or different for different types of
human beings) and about what is just and unjust in our public
affairs, we can see that it would be foolish to expect easy or
complete agreement about the general education curriculum, which is
where liberal education in this country has historically resided..
This, among other reasons, is why the specifics of a program should
probably be left to the faculty of each institution to wrestle with.
Nevertheless, we know that
all good core programs tend to include learning in mathematics, the
sciences, history, literature, and at least one foreign language,
and that they tend to impart skills in writing, thinking,
calculating, and learning itself. A more controversial point, but
one I think must be raised here, is that, while it is true that the
faculty should be charged with designing and teaching the core, this
does not at all imply that the faculty should be the only party
involved in it.
The purposes of the core
have to do with both public and private goods: with the inner lives
of our students, and with their public responsibilities as fellow
citizens. A commitment to a common curriculum asks something of us,
as well as of the students. What bodies of knowledge, which
competencies, and which habits of heart and mind should we be
encouraging? These questions transcend the expertise of faculty qua
faculty. They are matters of public interest and it should be the
citizens of Virginia, through their corporate capacities as members
of commissions such as this one, and through their participation on
the boards of public institutions of higher learning, whose job it
is to see that the core is of sufficient quality, breadth, and rigor
to accomplish its substantial purposes.
Now, how do we measure or
assess the quality of such programs? Clearly we must expect this to
be more difficult than it would be to assess professional or
pre-professional programs. One can rely on bar exams, medical
qualifying boards, CPA exams and the like for them. But the question
of whether we are in fact liberally educating our students is far
more elusive, even though certain components of it, such as
competencies in writing and mathematics present no overwhelming
difficulties.
I have no simple answer to
this question. But we are working on it. AALE is in the midst of
major project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia
and the Knight Foundation in Miami to see how such programs might
best be evaluated. With the help of some of the best people in the
country on this issue, we have, I think, made considerable progress.
We are also running some pilot projects, which involve institutions
as diverse as Portland State University on the West coast, and Bryn
Mawr College here in the East, and we have just been asked to
consider assessing the general education programs of the state of
Pennsylvania. So we have some experience in this difficult matter,
and on the basis of that experience I think I can assure you that
assessing the quality of core programs is indeed possible,
particularly if one is willing to accept the fact that some of the
most important and enduring products of liberal learning are not
readily apparent from testing of any sort.
Let me conclude by saying
that I believe we do know the "shape" of a good education,
and therefore are justified in seeking -- even demanding -- serious
reform and improvement.
Back |
