What follows is the second installment in the two part series about the future of public education. In the first part, I gave a link to a video presentation given by Sir Ken Robinson. Clicking
here will allow you to watch that presentation on public education, in the event that you missed it the first time. In this second installment, I will be providing my readers with my own feedback about the presentation, as well as other miscellaneous ideas related to the topic.
First, I do agree with Sir Ken Robinson's view that the public education system is in need of serious reform. More specifically, we both agree that the current path of reforms are not taking our education system in the correct direction. Standardized tests, college entrance exams and the like are all geared towards evaluating the learning of our students in programs across the nation. However, this concept has become flawed over time (or perhaps was flawed since the beginning). The most obvious reason for this is that standardization in school tends to force students to conform to the system. Furthermore, a school is judged based on the average scores. The individual student is forgotten, becoming a percentile or a grade. Therefore, a successful school doesn't have to teach students; it merely needs to get them to pass the tests. Curriculum is developed with this specific goal in mind. It is, essentially, the school's attempt to cheat the system. Their students need not know where Denmark is, or even when World War I started, so long as they know enough to pass the incredibly low bar that is set by our standardization process. Though, some would argue that the standard has to be low so that everyone may pass (another way to say this is: "we don't want anyone to feel different from anyone else").
Second, the education system is flawed. Sir Robinson compared the system to a factory. And there's no denying the similarities between the two. Teachers intentionally pass students who have not learned the material because of this "assembly line" mentality. So long as the student falls within an "acceptable" margin of error, he (or she) should be rushed through school as fast as possible. But is this not an inherently flawed concept? I don't mean to suggest that every student should know the Fourier Series. What I mean is that the school again takes the focus off the student and places it on the class and the curriculum. So long as the curriculum has demonstrated the ability to roll students down the line, it should be used. Is not every human being unique? Do we not learn at different rates, in different manners, and at different ages? A common defense against this criticism is the terrible lack of teachers (those proficient in their craft and otherwise) and the constricting limits of space and time. Without teachers to teach, classrooms to sit in, and years of time, how can a student be expected to learn the material? True, these are problems. But these are just as much a problem created by the flaws in the education system as they are a problem of a lack of something. (An example: removing the constraint of a classroom would allow classes to be held anywhere.)
Ultimately, the public education system is ungainly and slow-moving, but it is a massive machine in motion. Such a large machine does not simply stop or change overnight. It requires a great deal of small changes to affect it, or else it requires a national epiphany (and that simply won't happen). The system is designed to make us feel like we accomplished something, while, at the same time, we are expected to feel as if one person is no different from another.
tl; dr - Public education is flawed, but it's not likely to change anytime soon.
~The Piebald Penguin
P.S. As an aside, I also think that teachers who suggest mood-altering drugs for children are using their authority in a gross violation of logical and ethical standards.
