The title
of this chapter is intended as homage to Neil Postman’s (1995) The End of
Education, which though written over two decades ago, on the other side of the
globe, resonates with the chapters of this book. Postman decries the focus in US
educational discourse on technical questions – such as how to train teachers,
which instructional strategies work best, or how to construct assessments – and the concomitant neglect of metaphysical
questions about what education is for. “End” is of course polysemous, meaning both
purpose (as in, “the ends of education”) and finish (as in, “the end of schooling
as we know it”). Postman intends both meanings, suggesting that if we cannot provide
students, teachers, and the public a convincing answer to the metaphysical question
about the ends of education, then public schooling will be finished.
Postman
casts this metaphysical question in terms of the stories we tell ourselves about
education – “not any kind of story, but one that tells of origins and envisions
a future, a story that constructs ideals, prescribes rules of conduct, provides
a source of authority, and, above all gives a sense of continuity and purpose.”
Such stories give meaning to the educational endeavor and inevitably also shape
the answers that we give to the technical questions as well. Following Postman’s
lead, I examine here the metaphysics of science education in the East Asian countries
discussed in the book through analysis of the stories offered in the chapters. I’m
interested in both the stories the authors narrate – their own stories, and those of the policymakers
and public they describe – and, reading between the lines, the stories that are
conspicuously absent.
The dominant
story, which most frequently recurs in the chapters, is the global competitiveness
story. Wu, Wang, Cheng, and Yang open the Taiwan chapter with this story: “National
competitiveness and economic growth of Taiwan mainly relies on the development of
its science and technology industries.” Similar statements (though not all so compact) appear in
the chapters on Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The basic plot of this story
is that (a) the global knowledge economy is changing rapidly; (b) to compete in
this economy requires a scientifically and technologically adept, flexible, and
innovative workforce; and (c) therefore, science and technology education are critical
to national prosperity. Many of the chapters also emphasize the importance to their
economies of human capital in light of their country’s lack of natural resources.
The global
market rewards competitive advantage, so it is not sufficient to be good; each country
needs to be better than all the rest (i.e., it’s a zero-sum game). As such, even
the high performers appearing in this book display some insecurity about their capacity
to continue to maintain their competitive edge. Wu and colleagues end the Taiwan
chapter with the concern that, though Taiwan scored among the top ten in TIMSS 2011
achievement tests, their fourth graders scored below the top ten in interest and
confidence in learning science. The authors call this outcome “a crisis but also
a turning point”, i.e., an opportunity to improve the quality of primary science
education in Taiwan in order “to be one of the top-rank countries in the world.”
Postman
warns about the US version of the global competitiveness story, which he labels
economic utility, in The End of Education. First, he points to the lack of
evidence tying national productivity to educational quality – a point which is hotly
debated among economists (see, e.g., Hanushek and Woessmann 2016, and, for a critique,
Komatsu and Rappleye 2017). Writing from Israel, the so-called start-up nation,
Postman’s assessment rings true: our current high-tech boom is more likely related
to cultural, economic, and geopolitical factors than our mundane school science
(we ranked 40th in PISA 2015 Science). Second, more fundamentally, Postman argues
that “any education that is mainly about economic utility is far too limited to
be useful, and, in any case, so diminishes the world that it mocks one’s humanity.”
While individuals need to be able to obtain and perform a job, and nations need
economies, such objectives make for a rather dreary and uninspiring education.
Global
competitiveness is not the only game in East Asia. In half the chapters, a second
story, which I’m calling scientific literacy for civic participation, appears
alongside it. This story is captured best by So, Wan, and Chu’s opening of their
chapter on science education in Hong Kong with the recent collapse of a primary
school “green roof.” The authors use this event as an opportunity to reflect on
the risks inherent in technological advances and the need for children “to be equipped
with the necessary scientific knowledge and skills starting from primary education
to assess everyday and social issues, to have good reasoning for making sound judgement,
and to voice their opinions in an informed and constructive manner.” By equipping
pupils with this knowledge and skill set, the authors hope to “prepare pupils to
participate in public discourse in science-related issues.”
This emphasis
on civic participation, which appears also in the chapters on Taiwan and Korea,
is reminiscent of one of the stories proposed by Postman, entitled the “American
Experiment.” However, whereas the ideal of scientific literacy for civic participation
in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea is presented as the relatively straightforward application of scientific
knowledge and reasoning skills, in Postman’s version, the idea of democracy itself
is problematized. “The American Constitution is not a catechism, but a hypothesis,”
writes Postman, suggesting that the point of civic participation is to question
the state and social order rather than consecrate them. For Postman, the American
Experiment is about vigorous, continuous argument, about clashing with others over
socially and politically charged issues. One wonders how such a story might play
out in the more conformist East Asian societies – and in some of the more autocratic
East Asian polities?
Alongside
these two narratives, other possible stories are alluded to as the authors mention
aims such as the “development of a healthy lifestyle” (Korea), “climate change and
planetary ethics” (Singapore), a “zest for living” (Japan), “equal rights and chances
to study science” (China), learning to think independently (Japan), and “enthusiasm
in the potential of scientific inquiry” (Taiwan). But none of these themes are developed
into a full-fledged story that might give meaning and depth to the study of science
above and beyond becoming a scientifically literate worker and citizen.
By way
of contrast, consider how Postman speaks about science and its study in his discussion
of “Fallen Angel,” one of five alternative narratives he proposes. According to
the “Fallen Angel” story, we and our knowledge are fallible, but we have the capacity
to correct our mistakes “provided we proceed without hubris, pride, or dogmatism”:
Taking
this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—
is not even a “subject” — but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose
purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
In my
mind, such a vision has the potential to inspire the learning of science for its
own sake, as a topic which is an end in itself, since it is intricately tied to
our humanity and its perfection. I imagine that this is the sort of “existential
purpose… to which an education in science ought to be legitimately subsumed” that
Lee referred to in his critical discussion of topics that have not received sufficient
attention in Singaporean science education. In my reading, all of the educational
systems appearing in the book would benefit from such attention to the ends of science
education. East Asia appears to have adequately addressed the technical questions
of science education (at least relative to the competition); such lofty standing
at the top of the global league tables presents an excellent opportunity to engage
in metaphysical reflection.
References
Hanushek, Eric
A., & Woessmann, Ludger. (2016). Knowledge capital, growth, and the east Asian
miracle. Science, 351(6271), 344–345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7796
Komatsu, Hikaru,
& Rappleye, Jeremy. (2017). A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics?
Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education, 53(2),
166– 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1300008
Postman, Neil.
(1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.
https://archive.org/details/end_of_education