One of the main issues regarding education reform is the extent of what that really means. In order to understand the full thrust of the problem, one has to understand the playing field first and foremost.
The term "No child left behind" is often bandied about by politicians when talking reform. But can that federal ideal be achieved? when
how children are educated and
what they learn is not determined at the state level or even the district level-of which nationally there are roughly 15,000-but rather at the school and classroom level, even.
Why is this true? To get to the answer, let's get a little history first.
Teachers used to determine on their own
how to teach the chosen content going from one fashionable method to another: from students sitting in rows and columns to circles; from quiet classroom to lively, controlled classrooms; and so on. But amongst all this, it was still up to teachers as to
what should be taught as well.
However, over the last 20 years states have generally begun to agree on standards, but the problem is defining clear and teachable standards that are not too broad or too narrow which often creates confusion. Ironically, this confusion often results in the states putting the responsibility of what to teach back on the teacher.
But even if a "standard" is determined, how is it determined? It's generally done so by groups consisting of teachers and content experts. However, the proof is in the pudding. How do these groups know that what they are having children learn is actually used in the workforce to the greatest degree? Are these education-standard decision makers lost in pie-in-the-sky academic theory or feet-on-the-ground practical application?
How practical and useful is the education today's grads receive?
Personally, I've done informal surveys in my classes and have asked students if they feel they will have a "great need" in their lives / careers for, say, algebra, geometry, chemistry, biology, English literature, history, and so on. Rarely do I see more than a hand or two go up for any discipline I choose. An interesting result.
Administrators and trustees may come up with educational guidelines and content standards, but how many surveys are taken five years or so after graduation to determine how much of what was learned is used by students and to what degree? Maybe a realistic analysis will not only take the guesswork out of building curricula but also motivate teachers and administrators to teach to a "practical" standard.
To take the informal analysis a step further, let's look at what's being taught and whether or not it's actually needed by the majority who join the workforce. Let's begin with science and math, certainly twin stars in the eyes of educators and parents alike ("If only my little Johnny were into math or science . . . ahhhhhhhh . . .).
Let's be practical. It's wishful thinking to believe that the majority will use higher math (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc.) or science. Of course, the current desire of our government to encourage more math and science centered students is merely economical. It believes that the more people we can get into high-tech jobs the more competitive (read more money) America will be. Bottom line, will we catch up with the six countries we lag behind.
Certainly there are jobs in major occupational groups such as computer and mathematical; architecture and engineering; life, physical, and social sciences; but according to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics that's roughly about 5% of the labor force, give or take a few percentage points. The majority of jobs are in management, sales, health-care, protective services, food preparation and service, office and administrative support, construction, maintenance, production, and transportation. When is this reality ever addressed?
As an aside here, one reason we get lost in an inadequate perception of educational need is the peer pressure put on teachers and administrators to not only support popular ideas but to perpetuate their own jobs through self-fulfilling propaganda. Here's an example:
According to Karin Chenoweth, senior writer with the
Education Trust and author of
How It's Being Done: Urgent Lessons from Unexpected Schools, she states that "To be ready for, say, a plumbing apprenticeship or to get a job on an automobile assembly line or as a sales representative requires that students have fairly high reading and writing levels and have mastered math at least through Algebra II."
Hardly.
If they desire to move up out of these positions, maybe. However, sometimes even the very successful need little education or desire to be educated beyond relevant or specific knowledge that directly pertains to their skill.
I personally know a man who did graduate from college--a prestigious California college-- barely, and avoids books like the plague, but has developed a successful commercial real estate business. Another friend of mine never graduated from high school but runs a successful tree business that employs 80. And how about Bill Bartmann? a high school dropout who eventually went to college and graduated without a grade higher than "C," then went onto law school, graduated to became a lawyer, quit that job and moved into business where he has made billions.
Learning how to learn, to think well (critically, intuitively, creatively, etc.), to build one's knowledge base, skills, a productive attitude and good character are critical to success. But a formal, standard secondary education? One needs to understand its limitations, first and foremost. And the fact that no student is going to be forced to learn, or better yet, retain anything that is not of interest must be considered. Therefore, schools that unrealistically focus on what "We want kids to learn" is failed thinking and leaves out the most important part of the equation: the recipient. Do schools ever really focus on what the student wants? For once the formal institution's influence is gone, the student left alone unto herself will in most cases begin to see what she desires and focus and build from there regardless of any institution's "want."
Another often forgotten point is the fact that even if a child loves a particular discipline all is lost if that knowledge is not kept fresh through constant use. Consider that within 24 hours 80% of what one reads is forgotten if not reviewed, then where does a high school grad stand months after graduation, especially graduation with grades that represent knowledge crammed in and spit out as quickly as possible after testing? An all too common event. Very rarely if ever do I run into students who focus on knowledge gained. The majority work to the grade not to the knowledge (another issue educators don't address or overlook all too often).
But let's get back to the national focus on math and science and finish our thinking on this issue.
Sure, I'd like an ideal world where we all have great paying, challenging jobs (utilizing high-end math skills, science and so on), but it's not practical. The majority of jobs don't require anything beyond arithmetic, something the majority of politicians, school board members, and parents don't talk about. Math is pushed like everyone should learn it and that once that happens we're in a safe haven, it's the end-all and cure-all, life is good. Utopia here we come. But believing that marketing and selling math and science will get more interested, forget it, I've seen the level of math anxiety of anti-math students. It's not a realistic fit. And also consider that less than a third of incoming college freshman are proficient, I said
proficient, in basic math and writing skills, therein lies a major inhibitor in the belief that we are going to have an abundance of math and science students to fill the void.
Nevertheless, there should be a standard, and what the specifics of that standard entail should be determined by following graduates into the workforce seeing what is greatly needed and what is not. But once that's accomplished that's only the beginning.
Next, you have to get every teacher in every school in the nation on the same page which will greatly smooth out transition for the millions of students who move to a new school each year. Consider that not only does the new student have to adjust to a new culture, routine, students, but new curriculum as well. With a national standard, at least here the student will find familiarity.
By creating a national standard that means that teachers will have to collaborate. However, that's not something that is part of the teacher's professional development. And certainly teachers get together for meetings, but these meetings are often unfocused and waste time. By getting together with other teachers to discuss how to teach the new national standard, consult with each other and experts about a systematic, detailed way to teach it is, unfortunately, going against the norm. A complete overhaul of educating educators will have to be made in this regard.
And in order to get these norming sessions into practical action, teachers must focus on the controllable and on instruction not wandering into complaining or gossiping or rambling on about things not addressing instruction.
But other issues concerning what is
not taught in schools that is so essential to our youth's education that goes beyond standard curriculum are rarely addressed. Here's a short list:
1) Finance: few students have the slightest inkling as to what they will need to survive on or thrive on while working toward and through retirement. Financial IQ is such an essential aspect of being a responsible citizen it should go without saying, yet with the average American $10,000 in credit card debt and 95% of retirees relying on family, government, friends, and poor paying jobs to get by you'd think someone would have added this to high school curricula decades ago.
2) Co-op education: How many students focus on a profession because of the money or prestige, it's what everyone in the family has done or is telling the student to do, it's what she has "heard" is a good profession, and so on. In addition, not only are few students guided in what
they want to do--a key ingredient to success--early and often, but most fantasize about a job (wrong?) having no clue whatsoever what the day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year detailed realities entail. (Making the decision as to what we desire to do with half our lives--job / work--is important.) Using this method of taking a job "sight unseen" is like asking someone to marry you right after you've introduced yourself.
3) Relationships: One's ability to get along with others is priceless. The number of employers, colleagues, and peers who prefer likability over skill and know-how (much more easily taught) should point to the dire need for relations and relationship building to be taught in high schools. And with the greater success of any society relying on the family unit and with the divorce rate hovering around 50% . . . need I say more?
4) Dealing With Adversity: What happens when one loses his job? What happens when a business goes under? What happens when a rift occurs at the work place? These critical situations must be discussed and worked through as best as possible for the initiate, one who hasn't actually experienced them, to at least prepare the individual so he / she is not completely caught off guard when difficulties of this magnitude arise.
5) Character: No amount of education, talent, ability, skill or gift can compensate or make up for the self-sabotaging nature of poor character.
6) Ongoing personal development
7) Understanding and utilizing motivation
8) Self-improvement
for personal and professional gain
9) Leadership skills to optimize one's overall potential
10) Goal setting and achieving
to optimize one's knowledge, skills, attitudes
11) Self-confidence
11) Imagination and critical / intuitive thinking
12) Self-control; concentration / focus
13) Tolerance
of others, differing opinion and new ideas
So there's a lot of work to be done, a lot of rethinking, retraining, and re-opening of minds needed. This issue is complex, critical, and won't go away. All of what I listed in this article and much, much more is involved in getting our children up to speed for their transition from the dream / theory based world of academia to that of the harsh work world. May those with insight, courage, and level heads lead us to where our education system needs to be for the benefit of our children and all our children's children.
tweet this!
