Is there any other single more important investment that a people can make in their own future than the education of their children? I rather doubt it and so, it seems, does President Obama.
More than anything else in his joint session speech, it was his remarks regarding the singular importance of education as not only a duty to ourselves as individuals but as a duty owed to the nation, which captured my attention and ignited my enthusiasm. I cannot help but feel that here, here is a leader who truly grasps the interconnectivity of our society; the vital importance of continuing to advance our understanding of our world. So much of our nation’s achievement in the previous century has come about as a direct result of the development, perfection and deployment of new technologies and sciences that I frankly shudder to think of the loss incurred by the neglect of the last several years.
Our Fearless Leader (in case anyone was thinking I’d drunk the Kool-Aid) has transformed a previously minor, politically disposable issue into a matter of national security, economic necessity and national pride. I applaud this move and hope very much to see it taken up by the public in the spirit it was delivered. As a product of the public educational system in the late 80’s through the mid 90’s, I can certainly vouch for the desperate need for reform in the system…and I’m not above laying out a few ideas here.
The first and most important thing we have to get our heads around is this simple, painful fact: the American liberal education doesn’t work anymore. It is no longer possible for us to continue trying to make every 18-year-old a jack of all trades and expect them to be competitive in the global marketplace. There is just entire too much information, too many specialist skills required in the modern professional world for our traditional scattershot approach to be practical anymore. The age of the generalist is over and we need a new model.
With that concept firmly in place, I suggest a new approach I choose to call “mixed education.” This method is characterized by starting children in a general education curriculum geared not towards general mastery but rather skills mastery. Basic concepts of mathematics and literacy, with an introduction to languages. By spending the first year or two teaching these kids firstly that they can learn, and how to do so, we prepare the way for further instruction in a manner that makes the children the engine of their own education. From here we can spend two to three years building a basic repertoire of universally necessary knowledge and skills. The basics of American history, the mechanics of the English language, mathematical skills and the basis of the scientific method.
At this stage, we start looking at an individual student’s aptitudes and interests. From this point forward, education really needs to have an element of personal pursuit. Just as we build towards a goal in our colleges, kids in their 4th and 5th year of public school need to have a goal for their studies. Too many children fall behind or give up altogether simply because they can’t see a purpose to all the information being thrown at them. How many teachers or parents lose a child simply because they can’t give a satisfactory, motivating answer to the question, “Why do I need to know this?” If the kid wants to be a doctor, or has a talent for languages then they need to be moved in those directions, not forced into uniform patterns of development for the sake of appeasing some bizarre notion of competitive conformity. Additionally, gradually focused education will better prepare young persons for entrance into higher education. Under the current system, an ever growing portion of new college freshmen are having to enroll in remedial classes before being able to begin the coursework required for their actual degree programs.
Another vital point that needs reforming is our love affair with the current schedule of the school year. This is no longer an agrarian society and children are not necessary sources of farm labor. Aside from being a grossly inefficient use of available time, the traditional school year encourage a “data dump” mind set. Each new school year, the first words most kids here from a teacher are, “I know we covered this last year, but…” Why does this happen? Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel in our classrooms instead of building upon a constant, steady progression of skills and knowledge building?
Our kids need a year-round schedule of classes. It is absolutely true that down time is needed; every mind needs a break. A three month hiatus doesn’t help these kids however, as with most personal accomplishments, knowledge is a “use it or lose it” trait and protracted summer breaks allow vital information to be lost, forcing a great deal of retraining and wasting years of productive class time. A more productive model would be to have the kids in session for a period of seven weeks at a time, with a one week vacation in between. This will allow our teachers and students to build upon and reinforce knowledge and skills.
As a long term goal, that is something that will stretch over the course of a young person’s entire educational career, we need to start including a standard of multilingual achievement. English is presently the dominant language of trade and commerce but this may not always be the case; furthermore, strong command of foreign languages will make our children more capable of competing in the global economy, allowing them a greater degree of mobility as well as providing insight into other cultures.
Another key change needed by our system is doing away with the idea of keeping students bundled together as age groups or class years. People, young and old, learn at different rates and often in different areas. A good student of language might be poor in mathematics or history; we have got to let our children excel where they excel. Confining them according to age or date of enrollment only creates an artificial median of performance that satisfies no need and demoralizes everyone. Once the children move beyond the basic skills of learning, we need to let them advance as fast as they are able in whatever areas they are able. Also, specialist instructors in a given field are going to be able to provide more and better instruction to the students in their respective classes.
A key part of any process, particularly a skills or knowledge building process, is regular, productive assessment of the student. We have standardized testing already and it has proven to be largely unhelpful for a number of reasons. Perhaps the worst fault in the system is the temptation of schools to simply “teach the test” in order to show high marks and receive greater status and rewards from the government. That said however, testing is vital to tracking performance and we need to re-examine and adjust the model used.
My suggestion to get away from the idea of annual or even quarterly requirements for standardized tests. Instead I propose testing students every 3rd and 7th week, both to determine performance and as a requirement for advancement into the next section of a giving subject of study, be it a class in general mathematics, the specifics of human anatomy or English Literature. Students who are motivated to move forward in their education will strive harder and more diligently to achieve a new level of understanding and mastery.
These are only a few of the reforms I believe are desperately needed by our national educational system. They are also the most important an child-centric policies. I put these forward first because of the importance of beginning with our focus where it belongs in this discussion: on our children, the students, who are going to build our future one way or another, whether we prepare them for success or failure.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Exclusion 2.0
Scanning the extraterrestrial transmissions for the last couple of days (as well as partaking in a slice of dead-tree format journalism and a little judicious dropping of eaves in a couple of truck stops) I can’t help but note that the national consensus seems to be the Republicans need to figure out exactly what it is they’re about. I’ve mentioned this before but its always gratifying to see other people coming around to a point of view that I expressed weeks ago. Is that arrogance? Certainly it is, but not wholly unjustified.
What is bothersome is the slowly aggregating clique within the RNC that seems to be circling the wagons are the banner of “conservatism”. I keep hearing this phrase out of CPAC this year, “Conservatism 2.0”. This phrase bothers me for a number of reasons, chiefly because of the reasoning I hear behind its usage.
The reason for this new catchphrase seems to be derived from the success of the Obama ’08 presidential campaign. The campaign succeeded beyond all expectations in mobilizing the youth and utilizing the Internet; what many in “the Biz” call “new media”, presumably because they still don’t quite understand what it is. They completely missed the point, making the assumption that what enabled Obama to win was A: young people and B: “new media”. Somehow they’ve made the classic mistake of the 80’s, assuming that the medium is the message. There is an enormous amount of buzz being generated from within the hive over putting “the conservative message” on the web and the number of young people attending CPAC this year, including a 13-year-old who has proclaimed himself a conservative and even had a book on the subject published. A 13-year-old? Really?
And let's don't ignore the sideshow.
What these wing-nuts seem to be missing is that it really doesn't matter if you publish on broadband or bear skins, if your message doesn't sell.
Frankly, these people should be spending more time on figuring out exactly how they’re going to convince the rest of the country to embrace them when they’re whole message has been boiled down to, “NO!” They like to talk about being committed to principles and uncompromising integrity, et al., ad nauseum. The fact of the matter though, is that politics about compromise. When you declaim at the outset that you won’t give anything, you cannot, rationally, expect to be given anything either. I doubt very strongly that there is a majority of people (specifically, people who call themselves progressives) that have a problem with fiscal conservatism; in point of fact, I’ll go as far as to wager that most could easily see a way to reconcile fiscal conservatism with “pay as you go” spending policies. Unfortunately, the more moderate types on the right are hamstrung by the wing-nuts refusing to compromise on social issues like marriage-rights or birth control.
So what will the future face of the “conservative movement” be? My crystal ball’s in the shop, but I’ll hazard a guess.
Firstly, we have to understand that this all hinges on the ARARA. If it fails to produce measurable results within the next 12 months, you can expect a mass-shift back to the right in the House. Conservatives and their mouth pieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc.) will be crowing from the rooftops about the practical failure of the “leftist agenda” and proclaim themselves the champions of American freedoms in the face of a Socialist or Communist conspiracy. You’ll largely be able to write off any kind of social progressivism in favor of reactionary social policies brought in on the heels of free market economic policies. Conversely, if the current stimulus and reform plans succeed in producing something appreciable, the conservatives will be divided against themselves along lines of age, wealth and evangelism. Young people will gravitate towards the glamour of success, the old bible-thumpers will dig deeper into their bunker mentality and the Wall Street crowd will quietly follow the money. Net result: fracture and effective dissolution.
Oh, and Limbaugh will probably retire. Or have a stroke. Or both.
What we have to ask ourselves next is, given the latter (probable, IMO), is the end of the bipartisan system, replaced by a probable one-party state, a “good thing?”
Doubtful. History has shown us that whenever any one group winds up with all the bananas, they tend to become oppressive (or at least neglectful) of the people. Without any significant, organized opposition to challenge the entrenched power structure there is no motivation for rulers to restrain their own agendas and in fairly short order policies are set according to ideological dogma or person benefit. At this point the truly noble thing to do would be to enact legislation barring the formation or maintenance of political parties; give the winners a trophy and don’t play the game again. More likely will be either the rise of a new opposition party or the fracturing of the single dominant party. Any of these is preferable to outright oligarchy.
What is bothersome is the slowly aggregating clique within the RNC that seems to be circling the wagons are the banner of “conservatism”. I keep hearing this phrase out of CPAC this year, “Conservatism 2.0”. This phrase bothers me for a number of reasons, chiefly because of the reasoning I hear behind its usage.
The reason for this new catchphrase seems to be derived from the success of the Obama ’08 presidential campaign. The campaign succeeded beyond all expectations in mobilizing the youth and utilizing the Internet; what many in “the Biz” call “new media”, presumably because they still don’t quite understand what it is. They completely missed the point, making the assumption that what enabled Obama to win was A: young people and B: “new media”. Somehow they’ve made the classic mistake of the 80’s, assuming that the medium is the message. There is an enormous amount of buzz being generated from within the hive over putting “the conservative message” on the web and the number of young people attending CPAC this year, including a 13-year-old who has proclaimed himself a conservative and even had a book on the subject published. A 13-year-old? Really?
And let's don't ignore the sideshow.
What these wing-nuts seem to be missing is that it really doesn't matter if you publish on broadband or bear skins, if your message doesn't sell.
Frankly, these people should be spending more time on figuring out exactly how they’re going to convince the rest of the country to embrace them when they’re whole message has been boiled down to, “NO!” They like to talk about being committed to principles and uncompromising integrity, et al., ad nauseum. The fact of the matter though, is that politics about compromise. When you declaim at the outset that you won’t give anything, you cannot, rationally, expect to be given anything either. I doubt very strongly that there is a majority of people (specifically, people who call themselves progressives) that have a problem with fiscal conservatism; in point of fact, I’ll go as far as to wager that most could easily see a way to reconcile fiscal conservatism with “pay as you go” spending policies. Unfortunately, the more moderate types on the right are hamstrung by the wing-nuts refusing to compromise on social issues like marriage-rights or birth control.
So what will the future face of the “conservative movement” be? My crystal ball’s in the shop, but I’ll hazard a guess.
Firstly, we have to understand that this all hinges on the ARARA. If it fails to produce measurable results within the next 12 months, you can expect a mass-shift back to the right in the House. Conservatives and their mouth pieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc.) will be crowing from the rooftops about the practical failure of the “leftist agenda” and proclaim themselves the champions of American freedoms in the face of a Socialist or Communist conspiracy. You’ll largely be able to write off any kind of social progressivism in favor of reactionary social policies brought in on the heels of free market economic policies. Conversely, if the current stimulus and reform plans succeed in producing something appreciable, the conservatives will be divided against themselves along lines of age, wealth and evangelism. Young people will gravitate towards the glamour of success, the old bible-thumpers will dig deeper into their bunker mentality and the Wall Street crowd will quietly follow the money. Net result: fracture and effective dissolution.
Oh, and Limbaugh will probably retire. Or have a stroke. Or both.
What we have to ask ourselves next is, given the latter (probable, IMO), is the end of the bipartisan system, replaced by a probable one-party state, a “good thing?”
Doubtful. History has shown us that whenever any one group winds up with all the bananas, they tend to become oppressive (or at least neglectful) of the people. Without any significant, organized opposition to challenge the entrenched power structure there is no motivation for rulers to restrain their own agendas and in fairly short order policies are set according to ideological dogma or person benefit. At this point the truly noble thing to do would be to enact legislation barring the formation or maintenance of political parties; give the winners a trophy and don’t play the game again. More likely will be either the rise of a new opposition party or the fracturing of the single dominant party. Any of these is preferable to outright oligarchy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)