education reform revolution

Posted: February 28th, 2005 | Author: | Filed under: politics, society | 4 Comments »

In my trolling for news, I came across this article, Governors Work to Improve H.S. Education. It points out a large part of why this country is going into the sh*tter. Here’s a choice quote that really set my blood to boil:

“At least one agreement is likely. Achieve, a nonprofit group formed by governors and corporate leaders, plans to announce Sunday that roughly 12 states are committing to raise high school rigor and align their graduation requirements with skills demanded in college or work”

The f*cking problem highlighted so well here is that teaching is headed in the wrong direction and it’s the politicians and business men chasing it that way like the bulls in Pamplona. Instead of teaching kids how to think, education is becoming about teaching them what to think and how to work.

A little further down in the article, it describes what the governors and corporate leaders want as “requiring tougher courses for all students”. That’s not the problem people. Whether high school courses are too easy or not is not the problem. Before I get more specific, here’s a quote from your friend and mine, Bill Gates:

“By obsolete, I mean our high schools _ even when they’re working as designed _ cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.”

I agree with our once but-not-future overlord about that. We can’t teach kids everything they need to know. We never have been able to. Think about it. What high school teaches a class on being a CEO or being President or interpreting legal documents or filling out tax forms? Of course those aren’t the skills being proposed for public high schools. No, the politicians and business men want to teach kids the skills they need to be drones and uninformed voters.

What we need is a required course on critical thinking, a course on research, a course on speaking. To roughly paraphrase an old proverb, teach a kid a skill and he can work a job, teach a kid to think and he can work any job. Mankind is the dominate force on the planet because of our intellect. Other species have tougher hides, sharper teeth, can run faster, but we can out think them and therefore out adapt them. If we teach our kids to think and reason they will be able to adapt to any changes in technology or society or government.

A reasoning, adaptable populace is not going to be tied to a status quo though and that’s a danger for the people at the top. So you won’t hear them suggest a course on reasoning skills, just a course on spreadsheet skills. And as long as all we do is sit back, watch, and let them shove meaningless bureaucratic numbers down our throats they’ll get away with it. What action do we need to take? I don’t know, but it’s going to start with paying more attention to who we put into power (either through voting or through purchasing).

  • Dabe

    Well, several thoughts here.

    If we teach kids to think, then they might do something radical and vote the politicians out of office, and run the CEOs out of business. Which is not in those people’s personal interest. The whole growth/stagnation dichotomy, blah blah blah.

    I’ve always maintained that if we teach people how to LEARN, then they can be truly formidable on the mental front. Imagine: you possess the desire to learn about a topic, and you have the skills required to learn anything because you understand HOW to learn.

    Sounds like you and I are of the same mind on this, but you actually have a method of it, while mine is almost worthlessly abstract.

    I would hope that the critical thinking course would be more involved than the crappy thing they tout as “Critical Thinking” in Georgia State. I could definitely see a rigorous course or set of courses from a young age, (but only once kids are of age to learn it, that might prove tricky) as doing a lot of good.

    The research course would be a godsend. I still don’t understand how I got out of a writing-based school, with several AP courses to my credit and a 3.0 average without having done a serious research paper since the one I muddled my way through in SIXTH grade and failed.

    I just didn’t do any. There were some assigned, and I took the failing grade for the work, but still managed to pass the freakin’ class!

    Speaking’s a good idea, but again you’ll run into people who don’t want to embarass their kids, and you’ll have shy kids who really won’t want to speak in class. I’m pretty sure there’s a way to get around that though.

    So to summarize, I agree with you wholeheartedly and am thinking about using some of your ideas as a future teacher myself.

  • Jason

    I don’t know that I’d call my ideas a “method”. Those course suggestions were just the first skills that came to mind. Teaching kids how to learn is a good first step and something I hadn’t thought of.

    I also did very few or possibly no research papers in high school (my brain don’t go that far back) and made it out with at least a 3.0 GPA.

    The speaking idea was intended more generally than that. Meaning we need to teach them to communicate. A kid that can reason but can’t communicate his thoughts is almost as bad as a kid that can’t reason but won’t shut the hell up.

    And now you’re just scaring me. Threatening to actually use my ideas. What’s the world coming to?

  • Dabe

    Well, several thoughts here.

    If we teach kids to think, then they might do something radical and vote the politicians out of office, and run the CEOs out of business. Which is not in those people’s personal interest. The whole growth/stagnation dichotomy, blah blah blah.

    I’ve always maintained that if we teach people how to LEARN, then they can be truly formidable on the mental front. Imagine: you possess the desire to learn about a topic, and you have the skills required to learn anything because you understand HOW to learn.

    Sounds like you and I are of the same mind on this, but you actually have a method of it, while mine is almost worthlessly abstract.

    I would hope that the critical thinking course would be more involved than the crappy thing they tout as “Critical Thinking” in Georgia State. I could definitely see a rigorous course or set of courses from a young age, (but only once kids are of age to learn it, that might prove tricky) as doing a lot of good.

    The research course would be a godsend. I still don’t understand how I got out of a writing-based school, with several AP courses to my credit and a 3.0 average without having done a serious research paper since the one I muddled my way through in SIXTH grade and failed.

    I just didn’t do any. There were some assigned, and I took the failing grade for the work, but still managed to pass the freakin’ class!

    Speaking’s a good idea, but again you’ll run into people who don’t want to embarass their kids, and you’ll have shy kids who really won’t want to speak in class. I’m pretty sure there’s a way to get around that though.

    So to summarize, I agree with you wholeheartedly and am thinking about using some of your ideas as a future teacher myself.

  • Jason

    I don’t know that I’d call my ideas a “method”. Those course suggestions were just the first skills that came to mind. Teaching kids how to learn is a good first step and something I hadn’t thought of.

    I also did very few or possibly no research papers in high school (my brain don’t go that far back) and made it out with at least a 3.0 GPA.

    The speaking idea was intended more generally than that. Meaning we need to teach them to communicate. A kid that can reason but can’t communicate his thoughts is almost as bad as a kid that can’t reason but won’t shut the hell up.

    And now you’re just scaring me. Threatening to actually use my ideas. What’s the world coming to?