22nd January 2009, 11:39 AM
There's too much emphasis on making kids have a little bit of knowledge in a lot of different fields rather than going in-depth on these topics. History? Rush through Pre-Revolutionary War up to Civil War, everything else is scattershot at best. Math? Make sure everyone gets a little algebra at least. Biology? As long as they know what a cell is, we're good to go. It goes on from there, but the point's been made.
Now, I think it's a good idea to give kids an exposure to more than just a few core elements of what the world's like, but at the end of the day, kids come out of school with a lot of nothing. As for the solution to that, well, I'm not sure. Part of the problem is that there's no shortage of teachers, particulary in grade school, that are just intersted in touching briefly on a few keys points and then handing out busy work. There's no emphasis on actualy learning the material or having a detailed discussion between teacher and students about the importance of the subject.
I understand that doing that, particulary for very young students, is difficult, but you rarely see that at all outside of higher-level college courses.
What I'm trying to say here is that there needs to be a renewed emphasis on schools actually teaching, rather than just being the free daycares they seem to be today.
There's one more point to make, one that I know will be very controversial. I can already see a long and heated debate arising between myself and ABF, possibly DJ as well, over what I'm going to say next. So, before you get your keyboards ready, I understand exactly what the downsides and implications of this point are, but I'm going to make it anyway because it's something that should be seriously considered.
Okay, here goes. One of the problems in our school system today is that we believe every single child in this country has an absolute right to no less than twelve years of education. Obviously, given the country that we're in, this is the sort of belief that most people have without question. No discrimination, everyone's equel. On the surface it's a great idea and one that should be fought for, as it places an obligation on parents to allow their children to grow and mature and develop unique personalities, rather than just be cheap, or free, labor.
Sounds good? Of course it does, there are a lot of reasons not to change this belief. However, the problem arises when you take into account that not all children are the same. Some children are great at math, but bad at English. Some children are good at doing homework, but bad a taking tests. And so on. Some children simply do not have the mental capacity to keep up with other students their age. Yet we continue to do everything in our power to ensure that students whose mental capabilities are on a second grade level learn, or at least attempt to memorize, algebra. How does that benefit the student? It doesn't, at all. Because that student will never been in a position to use that kind knowledge, most likely because they will never be able to comprehend it.
The problem is thus: We do everything we can to pull the students at the bottom up, even if they will never be equal to their peers, and, at the same time, the students at the top are pulled down, even if they could outstrip their fellow classmates, because that's not what the school system is designed to do.
Why does the school system try so desperately to take students of widely diverse characteristics and abilities and boil them all down to homogenized product? Isn't America a country full of individualists?
To tie back into the first point I made, rather than trying to cram in as many different topics as possible over the course of twelve years without regard for the individual student, the cirriculum should be tailored to suit each student's needs and abilities.
Students lacking the mental capabilities of their peers should be taught as much as they can comprehend and then they should be taught how to get a job, what kinds of jobs they can get, how to do those jobs, and how to take care of themselves so that they can at least have something of a normal and indepent life.
Normal, average students should be given a cirriculum that is similar to what is present now, although with some modifications to accomodate individual tastes, desires, and skills.
Students who excel should be encouraged to excel. Special classes, emphasis on finding deeper meanings in the material, and focusing on which areas these students excel in. Students with creative minds should have classes that focus on growing those skills. Students with highly technical minds should have classes that allow them to approach more difficult science and math subjects.
And on it goes. But we don't do that. We have a set cirriculum and everyone is expected to learn the same material and is judged against the same criteria. Making good citizens, huh? It's a nice thought, but if you actually take a good look at the education system from kindergarten through highschool, we may as well be programing a line of homogenized robots.
Now, I think it's a good idea to give kids an exposure to more than just a few core elements of what the world's like, but at the end of the day, kids come out of school with a lot of nothing. As for the solution to that, well, I'm not sure. Part of the problem is that there's no shortage of teachers, particulary in grade school, that are just intersted in touching briefly on a few keys points and then handing out busy work. There's no emphasis on actualy learning the material or having a detailed discussion between teacher and students about the importance of the subject.
I understand that doing that, particulary for very young students, is difficult, but you rarely see that at all outside of higher-level college courses.
What I'm trying to say here is that there needs to be a renewed emphasis on schools actually teaching, rather than just being the free daycares they seem to be today.
There's one more point to make, one that I know will be very controversial. I can already see a long and heated debate arising between myself and ABF, possibly DJ as well, over what I'm going to say next. So, before you get your keyboards ready, I understand exactly what the downsides and implications of this point are, but I'm going to make it anyway because it's something that should be seriously considered.
Okay, here goes. One of the problems in our school system today is that we believe every single child in this country has an absolute right to no less than twelve years of education. Obviously, given the country that we're in, this is the sort of belief that most people have without question. No discrimination, everyone's equel. On the surface it's a great idea and one that should be fought for, as it places an obligation on parents to allow their children to grow and mature and develop unique personalities, rather than just be cheap, or free, labor.
Sounds good? Of course it does, there are a lot of reasons not to change this belief. However, the problem arises when you take into account that not all children are the same. Some children are great at math, but bad at English. Some children are good at doing homework, but bad a taking tests. And so on. Some children simply do not have the mental capacity to keep up with other students their age. Yet we continue to do everything in our power to ensure that students whose mental capabilities are on a second grade level learn, or at least attempt to memorize, algebra. How does that benefit the student? It doesn't, at all. Because that student will never been in a position to use that kind knowledge, most likely because they will never be able to comprehend it.
The problem is thus: We do everything we can to pull the students at the bottom up, even if they will never be equal to their peers, and, at the same time, the students at the top are pulled down, even if they could outstrip their fellow classmates, because that's not what the school system is designed to do.
Why does the school system try so desperately to take students of widely diverse characteristics and abilities and boil them all down to homogenized product? Isn't America a country full of individualists?
To tie back into the first point I made, rather than trying to cram in as many different topics as possible over the course of twelve years without regard for the individual student, the cirriculum should be tailored to suit each student's needs and abilities.
Students lacking the mental capabilities of their peers should be taught as much as they can comprehend and then they should be taught how to get a job, what kinds of jobs they can get, how to do those jobs, and how to take care of themselves so that they can at least have something of a normal and indepent life.
Normal, average students should be given a cirriculum that is similar to what is present now, although with some modifications to accomodate individual tastes, desires, and skills.
Students who excel should be encouraged to excel. Special classes, emphasis on finding deeper meanings in the material, and focusing on which areas these students excel in. Students with creative minds should have classes that focus on growing those skills. Students with highly technical minds should have classes that allow them to approach more difficult science and math subjects.
And on it goes. But we don't do that. We have a set cirriculum and everyone is expected to learn the same material and is judged against the same criteria. Making good citizens, huh? It's a nice thought, but if you actually take a good look at the education system from kindergarten through highschool, we may as well be programing a line of homogenized robots.
Sometimes you get the scorpion.