Education in the United States, problems and solutions (long)

[bholdr]

Lehighguy's post about big issues got me rambling into my old educational philosophies, reminding me about some concepts that I haven't thought about in a long time. In this post I will attempt to discuss what I personally think needs to happen to the American educational system in order for the US to remain competitive in the coming generations, and to fix the various catastrophic problems that American schools face. Most, or all, of this post will be opinion- I do not have the time to research the studies that will back up my points, but you are, of course, welcome to post any that either support or disprove my positions. Also, everything here is from a layman's perspective, albeit an educated one. I am not a professional educator (though I have been paid to teach or tutor many different subjects), but I am well-versed in the problems that face the current educational system. Okay, on to the post... (which is, as always, all IMHO)

Premise:

The American educational system is broken. American students, from kindergarten to high school graduates, are no longer competitive with their first-world counterparts, in terms of standardized test scores, employability, and just plain competence. to fix the problem, we cannot simply raise standards, initiate voucher programs, and pay teachers more (though these things do help, they are responses to symptomatic things, and do not attack the root of the problems that we face). what we need to do is totally tear down and rebuild the prevailing educational paradigm and the current infrastructure in order to remain competitive.

Problems: (which are NOT being addressed)

A: Children in America are generally taught many, many things. among those things, however, is not 'HOW to learn'- that is, kids pretty much have to figure out on their own how to best assimilate and organize information on their own. Teachers also often cater only to a single learning style they‘re not taught HOW to teach, only what to teach- the model of a teacher lecturing at the front of the class is effective only for aural-sequential-learners with an external locus of control- more on that later.

B: Also, that which they are taught is often taught without any CONTEXT- they are taught how to make a graph, but not how to apply it, how to write a sonnet, but not WHY one would want to. They know that Columbus discovered the Americas, but they do not understand the economic factors that made his voyage not only possible, but inevitable

C: Schools, as we build them now, are currently horribly unhealthy learning environments- factories for the minds of children, assuming that all kids have equal capacities and potential. There are far to many kids at each school, they are fed poorly and supervised improperly. The very DESIGN of most modern schools (high schools in particular) inhibits learning and creativity.

Symptoms of the problems: (which ARE being addressed, though not effectively)

Aa: Otherwise intelligent students are not able to learn. Standardized test scores are miserable. Children do very little learning outside of school.

Ba: Some students excel in certain areas but fail in others. Other students are unable to learn at all. Of that which they Do learn, they are unable to apply much of it effectively.

Ca: Bullies, gangs, drugs, dangerous lifestyles, depression, over-medication, irresponsible sexual promiscuity, cliques, and, once again, an inability to learn effectively. Also, a tremendous waste of money.

Potential solutions

Ab: First, we need to change the way that the TEACHERS are taught, at the university level. There is far too much emphasis put on the material and nowhere enough put on understanding the psychology behind learning. I mentioned that, in most schools, students are taught only one way- the classic lecture/notes/test/pointless homework format, with maybe some hands on work rarely to break the monotony. This is disastrous. Some people are naturally visual learners, and learn best be seeing the subject matter presented in a visual manner, others are aural (hearing) and do quite well in the normal format. Still others are primarily kinesthetic learners- they have to touch and feel the subject matter in order to learn it- these students have the toughest time under the current structure. In addition to the aural/visual/kinesthetic axis of learning styles, there are others:
**Some students learn globally, others sequentially.
**Some students learn best when a teacher does the teaching, others learn best when the teacher serves merely as a guide to their learning. Obviously, those students with an internal locus of control are having a hard time being taught- they would rather LEARN.
**Some students naturally work better in groups than individually, others are the opposite
**some students 'test well' others do not, even though they may have a far greater practical command of the material
** there are more, but those are the big ones.

These are clearly major things… but most teachers take a grand total of ONE or TWO classes in college to prepare them for dealing with the various learning styles- instead, they’re busy learning how to write a test, grade an essay, or organize a lesson plan, or they may be studying a subject in far greater detail than they will EVER have to teach it. Math teachers do not need to know how to do high-level calculus to teach algebra and geometry, and their time would be better spent trying to become better teachers than becoming better at math, for example. I would think that an ENTIRE year of school dedicated to learning about learning styles and how to adapt to and recognize them in students would not be too much to ask or our future educators, no?

Personally, I work for one of the best children’s ski schools in the world (imho), and we often are called to work with developmentally disabled students, students with ADHD, autisim, and other similar problems, children who‘s parents have described them as practically ‘un-teachable‘. well, in my experience, there is no such student, only teachers without the tools to adapt. Our pre-season instructor curriculum (which I now teach to the other instructors) dedicates approximately 35 hours of intense learning to targeted lesson planning and application- we call it “kid tech”- wherein we study learning styles, capacities, potential teaching formats, and so on and so forth. we then move on to “ski tech”- for a grand total of about 12 hours- we teach skiing, but we learn how to teach, not how to ski. Teachers in the American educational system (and the rest of the world, too, as far as I know) do the exact opposite, with miserable consequences. I can confidently state from personal experience that this is a far, far more effective method of teaching and learning than the standard ‘teach the subject’ paradigm.

Bb: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Who the hell cares if some dead dude once made a watch that kept time well enough to reveal longitude on ocean voyages? Nobody! But… did you know that the guy that did it was an eccentric rouge genius that had to fight the entire scientific community at the time to lay his claim to the biggest monetary academic prize in history? Wow… add a little context and things get interesting… (the book is “longitude” by Dava Sobel, if anyone’s interested- I highly recommend it to any student of history)

Right now, students are taught how to do math, but not how to apply it in their everyday lives, so it remains a boring abstraction to them. But, if a math teacher takes the time to show them how to apply the math… well, do you think they might learn a little more? What if they had to write an essay about the life and times of a famous mathematician, describing how that person came to the conclusions that they did, taking into account the social and economic pressures that their subject faced… now, all of the sudden, not only are they learning the math (and learning it better than they would just memorizing formulae and doing hundreds of ‘problems’), but they’re learning how to write, (and their writing is focused and has a purpose- to explain the math- that makes it far better and more interesting than just ‘pick something and write me a three page paper on it), and they’re learning history, and maybe some basic economics and geography, and… CONTEXT.

Context is at the core of ‘interdisciplinary learning’, which is a new educational paradigm that is slowly but surely beginning to be used in progressive universities and community colleges across the country. In an ID class, a student may receive, say, five credits of English and five of history, for a class that studies 19th century romantic literature, and also the lives and times of the authors. Context…ID learning SHOULD account for well over half of all lessons taught in public schools. Obviously, there are some subjects that will do better taught according to the current model- but I can’t actually think of one right now. Even metal shop could be combined with, say, chemistry, or drafting. History, English, math, and the other ‘core’ subjects can be almost universally applied to various subjects, and should be, since, for example, 99.9% of students will never write purely to write, but will be writing about things in their field, whatever that may become. Therefore, ID learning is not only a superior teaching method, but also better prepares students for real-life challenges. An ID class may often require a two-hour block of time for lessons and have larger class sizes, but that’s a good thing, as that means they also may support multiple teachers- all the better to be able to reach all the various learning styles, etc…

And get the parents involved in the learning process… if your class is learning about history, and a parent of one of the students is an antique dealer, get ‘em in there. If it’s math and a parent is an accountant, let them help the students learn, perhaps by having the parent come in and teach basic bookkeeping… if it’s politics, invite local leaders to hold a debate in front of the students… these are just examples.

Cb: Fer god’s sake, stop building big regional schools that cost a zillion dollars in land and construction costs. Build smaller schools, perhaps 500 students tops, maybe twenty teachers and a half-dozen staff. Trim the fat by cutting things that don’t really help students learn and grow as people, but have become institutionalized and are accepted as necessary now. No more phys-ed (in HS, not middle schools and elementary schools), no tax money paying for student dances, pep rallies, and the like. No more School sponsored sports that do not, in one way or another, support themselves. Also, though this is a little off topic, keep ADVERTISING and corporate interests the hell out of our public schools- it doesn‘t do a thing to help students learn, and probably hurts in the long run.

-Cut the size of the average high school in half and you make it much easier to police and eliminate many of the social problems facing our youth- drugs, gangs, violence, and so on. Restructure disciplinary procedures so that they may have some chance of HELPING the student that gets into trouble, instead of simply expelling them and moving them to what is probably going to be yet another school that will eventually expel them, too. That’s got to be great for a kid’s psychological well being, eh?

-Also, we must stop building big, depressing, modernist (le courbisur [sp?] was a shortsighted hack of an architect- modernism is the death of individuality and creative thinking) buildings. Build school campuses in such a manner that they promote and facilitate learning, not so they stifle it. More color, more light, better design, etc…

-Teach life skills in high school or even earlier. How much of a difference to this country would it make if EVERY single student was required to demonstrate that they know how to balance a checkbook? Change a tire and check a pilot light, work on the internet, etc? Or how to write a polite letter? Or at least how to put on a damn condom (well, we‘ll hold off on asking them to demonstrate that one).


*****

These are only a partial list of the problems and potential solutions to them facing the nation’s youth in our public (and private) schools. There is no panacea, no standard of accountability or law that will effect the necessary changes. It will take a long time, probably a generation at least, IF everyone agrees on a direction and strives for it. It will be massively expensive, but is hugely +EV in the long run, and bordering on a national necessity, and not to mention just plain better for the children.

This post may come off as being written by someone that couldn't deal with the current system. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I was one of the lucky ones, and my HS years were remarkably well adjusted- I went to all the dances and got my letter, had girlfriends and went to the parties… but I saw the system destroy some of the smartest and most talented people I knew- I had three friends attempt suicide in HS, and one get killed, many fell to drugs, a couple have AIDS, some are just losers that never got a chance or a solid educational foundation. I honestly feel that if their learning environments had been healthy and supportive, instead of impersonal and destructive, things may have been different for many of them. (btw, I’ve been thinking about all these things since I was 17- when, frustrated with it all, I dropped out of school and finished my education in community college)

Thoughts? (other than, 'good god, man, you wrote all this for a poker board?')

there will be no test.