Mark Twain and Victor Hugo

The fact that there are so many conceptions about education around the world and the
most varied ways of educating make us feel confused and hesitant about the actual
reasons for giving young people the most accurate and updated tools to become thinking
adults. School is the centre of attention when talking about teaching and learning
processes, however we have diverse manners of understanding it. Mark Twain, for
instance, said that he never let school interfere with his education. On the other hand,
Victor Hugo held: He who opens a door closes a prison. Which is the reason for such
contradictory thoughts? Perhaps school in times of Mark Twain was very different from the
one in times of Victor Hugo. Despite the existence of this possibility we need to recognize
that both opinions are valid nowadays and that the main subject we should discuss is what
education is for.
Something is more than clear; we do not need old fashioned schools which teach children
how to describe a horse in mathematical terms. Kids do not always learn by getting
rewards when producing an expected behavior, or by receiving punishments when they do
not study. What society needs nowadays is to count on curious young people who do not
stop questioning the things which have been established. It would be sad to find that
knowledge is something we can only find in books instead of the result of paying attention
to what has caused particular curiosity on us during a warm summer evening, for example.
Children should be interested when learning and they should learn what causes interest on
them. However, should learning be always entertaining or is there something deeper than
having fun?
Sumerhill is a school created in 1921 by A.S. Neill who believed that the main objective of
education was the capacity of finding own happiness. The bases for it were love and
respect. In Summerhill there are no formal tests nor marks, and there is not any
asymmetry in the teacher-student relation. Students should not feel afraid in the school
atmosphere and they deserve to experience freedom. According to Neil, interest was not
something that could be forced; therefore children should learn the subjects in which they
were keen on. In this way we may find that Summerhill is more similar to a utopia, to a
family or a tribe than to a school. As the democratic space that it holds to be, this
institution is characterized by its famous weekly meetings in which rules for the community
are set.
This school seems to be a great alternative to the old behaviorist institutions, but of course
there should be something more profound than happiness and interest when talking about
education. This does not mean that happiness is not important at all, but evidently we are
not always joyful in life. Sometimes, experiences are harsh and raw and human beings
need to be prepared for this sort of frustrations and disappointments. Having said this, we
may focus on blending some aspects of Summerhill to current schools and presenting
formal education as a complement for the lesson we all should receive at home when we
are fortunate enough to have one. If we think about Victor Hugos thought, we may
recognize schools as truly relevant temples of power where we are capable of modifying at
least a little part of social and cultural reality.

Some may say that education, schools, strategies are lost, that nowadays school is not
what it used to be; that teachers have lost their identities and that corruption is
everywhere. However, if we keep thinking in this way, where are we going to end? Some
aspects of school in times of behaviourism, such as severe punishments, discipline and
intellectual exigency, are also missed. People who stand for this idea, sustain that children
cannot know by themselves what kind of things will bring happiness to their lives, and that
they need to be guided by committed adults. Some others think that being educated is the
only way for getting a job or that a career is compulsory during these times. There is also a
group of people who consider formal careers as the curse of the twenty- first century.
As human beings, it is important for us to find a moment to sit down and reflect about
education. We need to think about our history of wars and conflicts and ask ourselves how
we would change at least an inch of society, how we would improve this world for the
future generations. The answer is not in physical punishments, nor in being
condescending to children, but on giving people the necessary tools for them to survive,
understand, and criticize. We do not want a young person to believe everything that
appears on the media, or to study at university because the system requires it, but to be
able to decide and act. We want people who want to change what is wrong about society
and if this woman or man whishes to go to university there has to be a warrantee that they
are prepared to enter.
To sum up we should ask ourselves if education is actually lost or if it has fluctuated. It is
real that improvements in education are relative in some aspects, but we must not dare to
go back to physical punishments or to techniques such as learning by heart, because
they are not useful at all. Nevertheless, rules are needed for children to find the limits they
sometimes do not learn at their houses. University is very rigid in its study plans, there are
not many options for a way-out hippie there, but if the former wants to fill a registration
form he or she has to be prepared by school as regards contents and tools. Finally: The
principle goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are
capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men
and women who are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify,
and not accept, everything they are offered. Jean Piaget.