Post by Luke on Nov 22, 2013 14:27:59 GMT -8
Education can been repeatedly used as a platform of both change and societal improvement. And as a concept, it is not a bad one. Compared to countries where education is a status symbol, and only those with money can even get a basic education, it certainly has its benefits. However in recent years, the whole concept of "least common denominator" has become the matter of course. Mandatory education systems focus on improving society at a whole, and neglect the individual.
Because the system is oriented on the needs of the many, and not the few, to quote Mr. Spock, the overall goal of the system fails. In order to improve society as a whole, you need to present those being educated with the choices that Make them educated. A mandatory education system doesn't present Any viable choices.
Choices are what educate, not curriculum.
A choice is something that must be meaningful to the chooser, otherwise the lesson isn't learned. In a mandatory education system, specifically the one the U.S. has been using for decades, does not offer a meaningful choice. More specifically, it offers little more than a choice of who is right and who is wrong. Often considered one of the most primal of decisions, it is ultimately the most Meaningless of them all. Its a circular logic, similar to the chicken and the egg:
What laid the first chicken egg? A Chicken, but what laid it's egg? Another chicken.....and so on.
Which answer is correct? This one. Why? Because I say it is, and the others are wrong. What makes it right though? Because I said so....and so on.
You can thus see the crux of the conflict: Without opportunity for a meaningful choice, and almost as importantly, without the Ability to make such a choice when it occurs, the school system ultimately falls apart.
In order for a mandatory education system to succeed, the goal needs to be Not the improvement of society as a whole, but to allow the students to be the ones making the improvement on their own.
Just a little background on my school experiences:
I have 3 teachers who impacted my life more than ALL of the rest: Mr. Wilson(8th grade Science), Mr. Andrews(8th grade History) and Mr. Snyder(high school Chemistry, 10th grade). These three teachers did something that None of the rest did: they put my education in my own hands. Mr. Wilson made it a competition, and despite some truly astronomical impediments in my life at the time, I was succeeding in his class, and even today, I remember everything he taught. Mr. Andrews made the material connect, he related the events, allowed us to make examples to fit the material into our understanding, and most importantly, he gave us Time when we needed it.
Mr. Snyder did probably the most profound thing of the three of them: he handed me the reins to his chemistry class. Instead of treating me like just another student, he basically gave me his expected assignment sheet for the class, and told me to be as close to on time as I could be. He then let me work on what assignments I wanted, in what context I wanted, as long as they had some loose connection to the assignment everyone else got. As well, the final project for the class, everyone else did some variation of a demonstration Mr. Snyder did in class; I on the other hand made a lithium battery.
Taken in the context of a curriculum, I should have colossally failed all three of those classes; but because they weren't just purely in the context of a curriculum, I was allowed to make the choices that enabled me to connect to the material, and expand my knowledge, as was the purpose of the class.
The system needs to shift its focus, and more importantly, the teachers need to shift their focus. I had one English teacher who was so rigid in her curriculum, that even using a small grammatical difference from what her preference was would earn you an F. And there are many more teachers like her, especially in the Math department, where teachers often view flexibility and connection as the greatest enemies of Math, and end up alienating their students.
Because the system is oriented on the needs of the many, and not the few, to quote Mr. Spock, the overall goal of the system fails. In order to improve society as a whole, you need to present those being educated with the choices that Make them educated. A mandatory education system doesn't present Any viable choices.
Choices are what educate, not curriculum.
A choice is something that must be meaningful to the chooser, otherwise the lesson isn't learned. In a mandatory education system, specifically the one the U.S. has been using for decades, does not offer a meaningful choice. More specifically, it offers little more than a choice of who is right and who is wrong. Often considered one of the most primal of decisions, it is ultimately the most Meaningless of them all. Its a circular logic, similar to the chicken and the egg:
What laid the first chicken egg? A Chicken, but what laid it's egg? Another chicken.....and so on.
Which answer is correct? This one. Why? Because I say it is, and the others are wrong. What makes it right though? Because I said so....and so on.
You can thus see the crux of the conflict: Without opportunity for a meaningful choice, and almost as importantly, without the Ability to make such a choice when it occurs, the school system ultimately falls apart.
In order for a mandatory education system to succeed, the goal needs to be Not the improvement of society as a whole, but to allow the students to be the ones making the improvement on their own.
Just a little background on my school experiences:
I have 3 teachers who impacted my life more than ALL of the rest: Mr. Wilson(8th grade Science), Mr. Andrews(8th grade History) and Mr. Snyder(high school Chemistry, 10th grade). These three teachers did something that None of the rest did: they put my education in my own hands. Mr. Wilson made it a competition, and despite some truly astronomical impediments in my life at the time, I was succeeding in his class, and even today, I remember everything he taught. Mr. Andrews made the material connect, he related the events, allowed us to make examples to fit the material into our understanding, and most importantly, he gave us Time when we needed it.
Mr. Snyder did probably the most profound thing of the three of them: he handed me the reins to his chemistry class. Instead of treating me like just another student, he basically gave me his expected assignment sheet for the class, and told me to be as close to on time as I could be. He then let me work on what assignments I wanted, in what context I wanted, as long as they had some loose connection to the assignment everyone else got. As well, the final project for the class, everyone else did some variation of a demonstration Mr. Snyder did in class; I on the other hand made a lithium battery.
Taken in the context of a curriculum, I should have colossally failed all three of those classes; but because they weren't just purely in the context of a curriculum, I was allowed to make the choices that enabled me to connect to the material, and expand my knowledge, as was the purpose of the class.
The system needs to shift its focus, and more importantly, the teachers need to shift their focus. I had one English teacher who was so rigid in her curriculum, that even using a small grammatical difference from what her preference was would earn you an F. And there are many more teachers like her, especially in the Math department, where teachers often view flexibility and connection as the greatest enemies of Math, and end up alienating their students.