The Function of Education in the Global Culture

Education simply belongs to the category of culture. Although people might get almost the same idea through the term of "education," the style, value, and evaluations towards the quality in education are varied from culture to culture. In other words, what is needed is different. Because the style, values, and evaluations are differently appeared depends on how each culture holds them, the judges, estimation, and opinions that are delivered through their common sense turn out differently.

Education in a culture is primarily only for the people within that culture, their society, and their lives. Since the styles, values, evaluations and judgments used in education are reflecting the cultural values, styles, evaluations are done by the way how the cultural value judge it, and they are based on how it is appropriate for that societal value. A piece of educational value that the one owns sometimes does not work when the person get into the another culture, or it does not give people with equal valuation, and just one piece of value can never be fair as it happens throughout the cultures.

The school education is the training of making people applicable the structure of the society. It is the common concept that is based in any society. Therefore, the judgement and evaluation that are taken in the society are applied to educational system in that society. And the society is born in a culture. The culture holds everything.

In the article "Lives on the Boundary," Mr. Rose discusses about the "idea of university," which either includes or exclude the students. What it means is that educational setting is accepting some students on one hand while it is not enable the others to be accepted to the education on the other hand. What kind of elements can be found as the causes of inclusion or exclusion in educational situation? Many aspects that influence on educational conditions are from societal settings. For example, social background, economical situations, and any other diversities of background, such as cultural similarities or differences, and languages.

How people can be included or excluded from "education?" It is obvious that there is a main stream of major educational process in this culture. Beginning from a kindergartens, preschool, and kids are going to the elementary school, junior high, high school, and many of them will get into colleges and universities. It is a public education, and it seems to be the way for people to be educated. Why? Because the main street education gives people with things that are required in the society, and they are the ideas and thoughts that are based on the common knowledge in that society and culture. For people to learn common knowledge is the power since it creates one culture and society. Even though people originally come from diverse cultures, people can create a major society and culture by themselves sharing common knowledge and values. A certain values are built for people to follow, as it is considered as normal.

Culture holds a society, and the society controls education by growing people who can attend the society. As attending a society requires certain aspects, the certain things are required to fit in the mainstream education. For example, particular amount of money, ability, skills, knowledge and conditions, and those are the requirement of being included in a society.

If they do not have a particular amount of money, they cannot attend school. If they do not have a certain level of ability to move, talk, or think, they are not considered as proper students for the mainstream school. If they do not speak the language that the mainstream education uses, they cannot begin or continue their education at their actual level at that time there, even though they understand the quality of the material. And if they have different cultural background, they might need to adjust to the other environment and norms which include attitudes, values, and perceptions.

On the other hand, when all those conditions are fulfilled, people are usually included in the mainstream education in this culture. The most strength of which those who are included have is the money, English, and cultural background. "The literacy curriculum is being asked to do what our politics and our economics have failed to do: (Rose, pp.117)" As political and economical classifications exist in the society, they similarly appear in the area of education. First, the cost of money classifies the quality of education. If people have less money, they cannot get good quality of education. The higher level and quality of education require the high cost of tuition. Secondly, social common language, English makes the biggest difference for people in American society. The people who have low income tend to speak less of English, because they need money first to live, and have not enough money and time to get education. However, one of the reasons why they can not get high income is because they can not speak English well. If people cannot speak English, people cannot get high status or well-paid jobs in this society. The people who have different background from that of "majority" feel comfortable with getting together in the same ethnical community. By doing so, they try to reduce their struggles, obstacles, damages and the save the energy to deal with them that probably come over them when they show up the major society as "different."

The economical hierarchy, the use of dominant language, and careless attitude of mainstream education about ethnical backgrounds that exist in this American culture is reflecting the same problems remaining in the U.S. society. Social, economical inclusion and exclusion directly relates to inclusion or exclusion in education in that society.

Within those three both social and educational problems, last two aspects, that are the use of one language and less of each ethnical orientations or setting, are the problems because they are not actually the reflection of this American society. The U.S. which holds huge number of ethnicity in its citizens, does not even require for people to require to have that real situational reflections? What do they have themselves for? American culture holds such a rich diversity of values and materials because it has the diversity of ethnical immigration backgrounds. To grow them as the U.S. citizens, why don't they learn one large idea that contains all pieces of American culture. All states, all pieces of cultures or ethnicities, and races. To have them all is the point that this American culture can be proud of, but it does not even come out as a cinstead of poor performance, required to unify the power of a body of knowledge to bring the poor and the rich together, in this society where the cultures and classes are truly intersect (Rose.pp117)."

As an international student, I have experienced a lot of confusions and contradictions going on my mind, and when I analyzed and investigated them, sometimes I reached some gaps between the two concepts. One was my assumption how I should have been seen or understood, and the other was the fact that I found how I seemed to be seen in particular situations. By entering into another cultural value, my virtue and strong points turn over to faults or weakness. The attitude that was normal and preferred once in my culture lost its value in this culture. I had to transpose the perspectives, values, and evaluation on myself in different concept from those that I had learned in my norms of my culture.

The biggest struggle for me is how to deal with communication. Communication as speaking language, and in writing language, both type of communication give me struggles. The difference of language is not just the difference of words, terms, or pronunciation. To use different language for communication and for one's expression is extremely complicated.

Communication can be categorized in three procedures. One is what kind of language the person uses. The second is the style, and how people choose the words to communicate effectively. The third one is the quality and contents of the communication. Those aspects are interacted each other to figure communication and how they are formed is differ from culture to culture. And it is interesting when I actually see how they are different. However, it easily hurt someone's confidence for communication when it is misunderstood or not accepted as expression at all.

Some of my failures were happened in my writing. When I was not get used to think of ideas in English, the sentences coming up with me were Japanese. I translated the sentences into English, and wrote them down. Since I was not yet get used to know the natural flow of English sentences, the words were less expressive, not effective, and difficult to understand completely for people who speak English as native language. Since many aspects and the order of phrases in Japanese were different from those of English language, the complete translation does not work effectively all the time. I was so frustrated when I could not make what I want to say through, and I got "???," "awkward," "doesn't make sense," on my paper. When the Japanese friend read the same paper, they knew what I tried to mean. I could not say anything but only just one-third of what I wanted to say within using capable English words and sentences of mine. I wanted to be evaluated what I wrote as quality and what I tried to say, but my words did not form what I meant, so it was rejected. The teachers do not guess just if the words do not make sense, even though I was writing having something I wanted to say with searching and struggling what would be the best way to say it. That was the norm in this culture because the communication is responsible to the writer, the information giver. On the other hand, I expected the teacher to read more than I wrote in words, just the way people are required to do in my culture.

The important feature in interaction between communications is the point to talk about, and also what things have to be done in that communication. And I felt the aim of the communication may sometimes shifted each other between mine and theirs' from American culture. That gave me frustration and was ended as unsatisfactory communication for me. At the group work in classes, particularly being only one among the people from American culture, I did not mean not trying to participate, but I just could not. It was because I had nothing to say about what they were talking about, and what I said was not useful for them to fulfill the purpose of the group discussion. If the teacher wanted student to figure out what the author tried to say, the students would list what exactly the author said. To me, the question was what the author really wanted to say beyond what he said, and what he tried to describe his idea by using that words appearing in his texts. When the students listed the sentences and words from texts, I would think "so what? Everybody can know that kind of things if you see that." To me, those list of facts were not the answer of the question that teacher gave me. However, in that classroom, they were. That was the matter of difference in style of discussion. And maybe the teacher would mark me as "not participating." That is what I have seen how the things are judged in this culture. In that case, even though I was thinking, with listening what the others talking, people did not actually see me as a participant.

What is the "education for everyone"? Mr. Mike Rose insists that c need a revised store of images of educational excellence, closer to cthat celebrate the plural, messy, human reality of cwe'll need a guiding set of principles that do not encourage us to retreat from, but move us closer to, an understanding of the rich mix of speech, ritual and story that is America,(pp. 118)" also he concludes.

What would be global perspectives? If it comes true for people to learn in their education, how the evaluation will be done? People could be good or bad just by being perceived and judged differently.

Resource:

Rose, Mike "Lives on the Boundary," The Presence of Others :Third Edition BEDFORD/ ST. MARTIN"S, New York; 2000 it. (pp.118)" "egalitarian idealsthe U.S. "point at this point. "