"Back to Basics"

Everyone is talking about going "back to basics" in education: math, science, reading, maybe a little history, etc. In lectures we've established the fact that in order to even talk about "back to basics," we need to define what "basics" really means. The issue of "who get's to decide" what "basics" means is an even greater issue. Regardless of my own opinion of what the "basics" of education are, Arne Duncan is probably not going to be calling me up anytime soon to ask me about my personal stance on this issue. However, as a voting citizen in an "individualistic society," I do believe my opinion matters to an extent...

Ok, so what are the basics of education? Ultimately, each high school sets standards that each student must meet in order to receive a GED. At my high school, these consisted of something like 4 years of English, 2 science courses, math up to the level of Algebra 3 with Trigonometry, 4 years of social studies/history (which were largely a repetition of middle school social studies), 2 years of a language, 1 semester of gym, health, music, etc. Essentially, these are the classes that my high school defined as "the basics."


While I realize that my own high school experience is only one case study, its graduation requirements are pretty average compared most U.S. high schools. In my opinion, the "basics" of education should be generally defined as "that which is useful to a human being on a regular basis." According to this definition, my high school's standards were ridiculously high. Take math for example: how much math do most people use on a regular basis? Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (probably with a calculator most of the time), some occasional geometry when constructing something, and perhaps even some basic, proportional algebra in cooking (these are just examples, I'm sure others can think of more). I would think these would generally be "master-able" by most people by the end of middle school. Beyond this level of what I would consider "basic" math, I think it is impractical to require all students to continue studying math. The opposing argument is, of course, that students need to learn beyond basics in mathematics because some day when they get jobs, they might need to use these higher level math skills. Perhaps this is true, but here's a newsflash: most students don't even retain these higher level math skills anyway! I took calculus 1 and 2 in high school and I remember almost nothing - in fact, I probably learned more about discipline than I actually learned about calculus that year.

So why are we spending so much time trying to educate students about things they "might possibly need to know" in their futures, instead of teaching them what they need to know right now in life? If, as Jim said, 95% of what current kindergarteners will need to know when they get to the work force hasn't even been invented yet, then what are we accomplishing in education right now? What if students were given a well-rounded, practical, foundational education covering "the basics" that human beings need to know to be able to function in society, and then were allowed to pursue subject matter of interest to them?

What would this look like? I propose something like this: students go to school to learn the "basics," until age 14 or so (or until they can demonstrate mastery of these "basics"). Then, students would be basically be given free reign to pursue their own academic interests. Schooling would still be compulsory, but students would have four years to take whatever classes were of interest to them. This would also include long-term internships, frequent job-shadowing, research opportunities, and even studying abroad. In this system, the students that are interested in mathematics (who will, of course, most likely pursue a career that employs their math skills) could take all of the math courses they wanted and the students who are not interested in math (and who would not, most likely, retain the information from a higher level math course) could pursue other areas of interest in which they could engage in meaningful learning. What if students were able to "get a better feel" for their academic interests and career pursuits in high school instead of college? I think most university "Major of the Month" clubs would greatly diminish.

What would it be like if we gave students opportunities to explore their interests completely divorced from the pressures of college preparation? To me, this is the essence of education, yet in most of education, we're sucking this curiosity and joy out of learning for kids...one test at a time.

As we reflected on this issue today, a member of my discussion group commented that although a system such as this might be a good idea in theory, in actuality, most students would not be able to handle this freedom and independence in their learning. As our education system stands today, this is certainly true. As ironic as it is, this country we live in that is founded on principles of independence and freedom certainly does not educate its students in such a manner. We continually spoon-feed our students mouthfuls of information, then give them barfbags in the form of tests and tell them to start regurgitating (I realize this image is disgusting, but it illustrates my point).

Certainly before a systemic change, such as the one I propose, would be able to be put into action, we'd have to start teaching our students to be independent thinkers. Independence is not just something some people are born with and others or not - it must be cultivated in children from an early age.

And believe it or not, our country is actually starting to transition, in small ways, toward the type of schooling I am advocating for. Just the other day, I read an article in the New York Times about 8 different states that have decided (for next year) to let high school sophomores graduate at the end of the year and get a two-year jump start on college - provided that they pass a series of "basic skills" tests. Many will make the case that 16 year-olds are not emotionally ready for college, and personally, I am not advocating for this either (although I probably would have chosen this track, had it been made available to me when I was in high school). However, this issue illustrates the movement of our society to re-defining high school. AP, IB, and post secondary classes, as well as this new concept of completing high school in 10th grade illustrate the trend that a significant portion of high school students in the U.S. are not satisfied with the traditional, high school education they are currently receiving. These movements tell me that students want to explore more options and to hone in on mastering the skills they see as important for their futures.

So what is really going on in education today? Why do we, as educators, principals, superintendents, curriculum-writers, standardized test-writers, and politicians think we know what is best for each child to the extent that for 12 years of every high school graduate's life, we pump them full of information that is going to be either forgotten or obsolete later in life? Are we trying to foster a lack of independence in students? Even if the essence of education is to prepare our students for global competitiveness (which I do not believe it is), how can people think that building math and science robots out of our students is even going to solve global competition?

Students (especially in high schools) are responding to the need for systemic restructuring in education by taking classes that give them college credit, and even through pursuing early graduation. These students aren't stupid, and they're telling us to "cut the crap." It's time to let education happen in schools.