« Google Ride Finder | Main | I ran a marathon! »
June 01, 2005
the most valuable education system
As I was doing some research at work today, I took a break and read all the away messages on my buddy list. I'd say this habit is prevalent among 90% of all AIM users under the age of 25. We all want to know what everyone is doing at all times. Anyway, while reading the messages, I happened upon a question, asked by one of my cousins that intrigued me. It happens to be her "Question of the week" or something like that. Below you'll find her question, followed by my response.
Question: Which education system (classical, modern american, technical training, etc.) do you think is the most valuable? what should be taught in primary and secondary schools today?
Answer: (I hope this isn't too long winded)
Now, I don't want to dive too deep into the semantics of this question. However, as far as I know the modern American education system is simply a more recent instance of the Western Classical Education Model. This model is made up of primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, each emphasizing its own factors. In American schools, primary education ends at the high school level and secondary education ends upon high school graduation. In our system, the tertiary level of education is more widely known as "Post-Secondary" education, and can come in the form of formal collegiate programs, vocational schooling, and even informal apprenticeships.
Personally, I think the post-secondary level of education works. Assuming people are able to choose a profession that they enjoy, they should be allowed to enter that field by whatever educational standards that field demands. I realize that we could, and should, remove many of the barriers that stand in the way of those who would like to enjoy the benefits of the ivory tower, but for the sake of this argument I will submit that if all things are equal, the American post-secondary level of education works well.
Primary and secondary education, however, can use a bit of refocusing. One major addition I see that is needed in the American Primary education system is an emphasis on a foreign language component. Humans lose the ability to acquire new languages between 14 and 20 year of age. That means after that point it is inevitable that learning a new language will require years of intense study, with the downside of imperfect acquisition. We need to train our youth to understand many languages while they have the ability to learn them. Of course, mathematics and verbal skills should remain in primary school curricula, but an emphasis should be placed on useful instantiations of these skills. Math should be concrete, not abstract, so that children can associate and be interested in the field. Computer science should probably be introduced to young children as well.
Our secondary schools should place an emphasis on self-worth. Students should be trained to enjoy the fields in which they excel, and to study them out of interest, not need. Less emphasis should be placed on standardized tests, and more on creative solutions to interesting problems. We need to teach our teens how to ask important questions, not simply how to provide mediocre answers.
I'm sure there's a lot more I have to say on the subject, but, frankly, I'm tired. If you've got comments, I'll be interested to hear them.
Anyway, special thanks should go out to my cousin (who shall remain nameless, unless she wants to be named), for inciting these ramblings and for asking such an interesting question. Thank you for asking an intriguing question. Our secondary education system has trained you well ;-)
Posted at June 1, 2005 08:34 PM
Comments
You want to introduce computer science in school? Kids dont need no comput'r science. They need the 3 R's! Read'n, Ritin', and Rithmatic. Especially Rithmatic. However, teachin' them chillun' a language is a good idear!
Posted by: S at June 2, 2005 08:08 AM
you left out history! something teachers tend to forget is not about dates and places, but about teaching students empathy for those whose history they do not know, showing them how big the world really is, and getting them to wonder 'why are we where we are?.'
Posted by: doron at June 2, 2005 10:12 AM
Liz and I were just talking about this. I agree with you on language. I think that parents think that a "balanced education" is best, but math skills don't develop till later, and even spatial reasoning is pretty bad up until year 10 or so. (I remember ripping my brother off a couple of times... he couldn't tell that a tall skinny glass actually held less than a short fat one.) I'd definitely put a huge emphasis on language initially, and move through it quickly.
I think the main problem with the school systems now is that they're being asked to do more than educate. Schools are now having to handle children that get no adult supervision, and as a result are teaching more "what is my role in society" based classes than "what do I need to know to get into college/get a job." I think that fixing this problem is unfortunately a different kind of question.
Posted by: Justin at June 2, 2005 11:54 AM
Science encompasses all abstract and literal aspects of the curriculum....So adding that to your 3 "R's" (and I agree, Social Studies is important)....Private schools add that foreign language component, but the public schools have not caught on in the primary level, (unless of course you happen to be in a gifted class with a staff that thinks "outside the box")...
Our public schools now are data driven, test inundated, business run systems that are beginning to drown, and society finds that most parents cannot take the time to help their own physically, mentally and socially (that spiritual aspect has been separated out like the whites of an egg).....
What to do? Make time to Take time with our youth...they grow up so fast. Nuture their human nature.
Posted by: Sci-mon at June 5, 2005 04:28 PM