Fixing the Education System

This installment of the “Fixing…” series focuses on one of the pillars of every modern society that wishes to be a global player: education. Without a populace that is well-equipped to deal with new problems and opportunities as they arise, a society is all but guaranteed to fail. Even a despotic culture that tries to keep much of the population impotent to all avenues of power has need for a core of educated people–if only so that the weapons of subjugation can be maintained and the tools of war kept up-to-date in order to stave off invasion.

For the better part of the 20th century, the United States boasted that it had one of the best systems of public education in the world. We had high math scores, many people went on to higher learning, and in the span of just seven years from challenge to accomplishment the country managed to send men to the Moon and return them safely.

But what have we done lately?

The years following the successes of the space race have seen scholastic scores dwindle and general standards lower. More and more, the seeds of continued excellence come from the outside (thank goodness for student visas). While this is not new, what is that many choose now to return to their home countries to improve their lot there instead of staying in a new land.

There was an arrogance from America that we had the answers to educating a populace. After all, the scores from the rest of the world didn’t seem to measure up. Then again, to be fair, much of the rest of the world had been ravaged by a small conflict that is often referred to as World War II. So, as the cities were rebuilt, the infrastructure reconstituted, and the needs of survival squared away, the luxury of being able to learn didn’t take long to take root.

Meanwhile, in America, less and less was being asked of the young. Making them work hard with the possibility that they might fail in their attempts to do something they only just learned was deemed by the larger society as being inhumanly cruel. If we made sure that people would be passed ahead regardless of their illiteracy or innumeracy, well, surely that path to building their self-esteem had to be better than risking the tears and recriminations of being left back a grade.

Of course I exaggerate in an effort to make my point (sadly, it’s only a slight exaggeration). The fact of the matter is that as more and more people who have no sane idea of how to educate the young have gotten to make the decisions about how to educate the young, it was only a matter of time before this bureaucratic house of cards began to implode upon itself.

Americans, being…well, American, love to complain about how badly the system had gotten and how something needs to be done about it. Americans, again…being Americans, are loathe to sit down and actually think about the system in an effort to make real change for the better. Since politicians often have little to no direct say in making their own suggestions to “improve” the situation, lest they lose much needed re-election $upport, I’ll take the bull by the horns and throw out something in an effort to start a discussion. Let’s start the ball of change rolling.

Acknowledging You Have a Problem

No problem was ever intentionally solved without first noting that a problem exists. To this end, I think we need to stipulate to the basic problem: the current system doesn’t work.

One of the steps in evaluating a problem is to see how severe it is. Is it fixable with some patching and maybe a new addition here or there, or should it be majorly overhauled or possibly thrown out and rebuilt from scratch? Sadly, having gone through the system before it was too severely crippled, and having watched its steady deterioration since, I have to conclude that patching isn’t going to do it. It’s time to bite the bullet and start from a new foundation.

Our Goals

When working in the space industry, I learned early on that nothing ever works as you expect unless you clearly specify what it is that you want as a result. If the goal is to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth inside of eight years, then we at least know what constitutes success. But what about education?

That might be the entire problem right there. We don’t know what our goal is. What exactly are we expecting of the educational system? Based on the results we are getting…frankly, I haven’t a clue. Fortunately, we are starting with a clean slate–a freshly erased and washed chalkboard, as it were. What an opportunity. Let’s see what we can do with it.

Learning. Obviously we want our kids to know stuff they they will need for their normal lives and future jobs. Not only that, we want them to have the tools that enable them to learn new things long after they have left the halls of academe.

Citizenship. One of the tenets of why non-repressive governments want their young to learn is so that they have a respectful, thoughtful, and law-abiding society. This requires not only learning the history of a place as well as some of its laws, but appreciating the meaning of all of that. Civilization requires the cooperation of a populace lest you have anarchy.

Productiveness. One of the problems cited about education is that it isn’t applicable to “the real world”. It does seem that once a person is deemed to have the basics of education down that they should be able to apply that knowledge.

OK. We have our broad goals of learning, citizenship, and productiveness. I would also add that we would ideally like this to be done in a time period somewhere between when a person turns six and when they are a legal adult at eighteen.

I should probably add that in order to reduce the discrepency from the haves and have-nots (i.e. the rich states from the poor states), this needs to be a national, largely federal, program.

Learning

So much has been done poorly on a program-wide level that we should just design from scratch. Step one: teachers.

Now, I respect teachers. They have an incredible amount of responsibility. However, we have consummately failed in delivering to students the sorts of people who should be teaching them.

Though it differs a lot from state to state, generally teachers are gotten from the legions of graduates from education colleges. You get your degree in education, then you can teach. The trouble is, while many of these people are qualified to be teachers, not enough of them are actually qualified to teach a subject.

Now I know a lot of teachers are going to complain about that last statement. Thing is, I’ve known a lot of people who were learning how to become teachers as well as quite a number of people who have since become teachers. My problem, you see, isn’t that they are bad teachers. It’s that they weren’t tempered in another discipline first before becoming a teacher. Of course there are quite a number of teachers who shifted to teaching after being trained in another specialty. I was fortunate to be the beneficiary of that sort of commitment.

See…here’s the problem. Too many college students who want to be teachers only take the easiest of a discipline’s classes…those designed especially for teachers. They never really become the experts in a subject that we would rightfully expect to be the ones teaching our children. Yes, there are some institutions that have high standards for their graduating educators…lets use them as our inspiration.

Also, there is no single standard for qualifying people to teach. It’s all over the board when it comes from one state to another. Nothing seems to guarantee the quality of a teacher.

So…I think we should toss out the education degree as a qualification for teaching. The education degree can be very useful as a tool within education for evaluating new methods, but in and of itself it does little to actually deliver those who have subject-matter knowledge.

There is the idea that those who have completed a certain level of education should be able to teach in their area of expertise (their major) to those who are at a lower level in the chain of education. For example, those with an undergraduate degree should be able to teach those in primary and secondary school; those with master degrees (and higher) teach those who are undergraduates; and so on. I say that we should start with that as our basis. If you have a degree, then you can teach at the next lower level in that subject…

…provided that you get a teaching certificate. I think that we tend to make this process a little too arduous right now. Let’s have the certificate be an indication that the person has taken about a semester’s worth of classes geared to training them in grading, administration politics, regulations, testing, and lesson plans–plus some actual classroom time. It’s a practical certificate that says that someone has learned what it takes to teach. Now…whether or not they are good at it, as always in any job, is up to the individual.

Teachers need to be held to a high level of competence. I think teachers should be required to be tested periodically on their ability to communicate (both written and in presentation) and tested more often in their mastery of their subject–do they still remember what they learned as well as keeping up in their field? a How they maintain their scores should be irrelevant. There are too many sham certification mills that exist solely to keep teachers up-to-date with their required “continuing education”.

The scores for these certification tests should be high since teachers should be more skilled than their students. Some of the marginal teachers will fall in and out of the system based on test scores, but it never shames them. If they pass the high standard (I’m thinking no less than 80% of a fair test), whenever that is, then they should be good to go until the next testing cycle.

Books

The single most contentious part of how to equip a teacher revolves around the quality of books and other related resources. It’s amazing how the purchasing of school books has become a morass of graft, politics, and incompetency. So…let’s make it simple: teachers of a subject can recommend books to an evaluation board. This evaluation board will consider published as well as completed but not published books; i.e. they must read them fairly from cover to cover. The membership of this evaluation board will consist of a random selection of teachers and experts in the field for which the book is targeted. They alone will have the power to accept or deny books to place on a curriculum list from which teachers will make their selections.

Evaluation boards can also make recommendations for how books that were not accepted might alter their contents so that they may be acceptable in the future.

Appeals may be made if a publisher feels there was an error. An appeals board will be the next evaluation board. Each member will have one full vote on the appeal, and the member votes from the board which made the rejection will be recorded as half-votes.

The intent of this is to have materials that allow the subject matter to be taught accurately and well, divorced of any local politics or bribery from the publishers.

School

So far, the suggestions aren’t too far afield from what could be patched into the system. Now, however, we get a bit more radical.

I immediately propose that the grade-level system be abolished. When we really consider it, the idea that any given student will achieve grade-level proficiency in all of their subjects in any given year is ludicrous. It tends to foster a climate of under-achievement in order to get students who for whatever reason have difficulty in a particular subject to pass up through the system. When we think about that last statement, the solution becomes apparent.

Subjects are taught until levels of competence are achieved. If one is adept at numbers, math classes might be a piece of cake for Julie, but Billy’s pace might be a little slower…or maybe delayed a bit. At the same time, Billy might tear it up in civics while Julie stumbles. In an atmosphere where almost no one is a quick learner in everything, the climate becomes one not of stigma, but of mutual suffering…er, support.

I suggest that rounds of classes in a subject start in frequent intervals of no less than two weeks and no more than six weeks. Why? Because we will be holding school year-round. It has been well demonstrated that the three-month break that most kids in the U.S. get in summer has a very detrimental effect on learning. This means that not only are they forgetting what they learned the previous year, but it has to be re-taught at the beginning of the next year. Much time and effort is lost that way.

(Small personal story: in a very rare occurrence, given the population of my high school, a group of us had the same mathematics teacher for all three years. From Algebra II/Trig on thru to Calculus, we had an amazing consistency of teaching. As students, the down side was that we couldn’t effectively complain that the teacher we had last year didn’t teach us something. Still, for a giggle, we did try. :-)

The reason for the stagger of classes for a subject is due to the realities of the lives of parents and work. Vacations, when they happen, should be at the pleasure of the parents, and not to the whims of some arbitrary learning schedule. A year-round school needs more flexibility than that. Plus, it accommodates the various rates of learning each student will have.

Based on some test programs that have had success, I also propose that no more than three classes be taught in any given school day. The amount of time wasted in the current standard of 50-to-55-minute classes is staggering. So often, once a class is settled and the momentum of learning is gained, it is time to wrap up and get ready for the next class. No, it is best if we give students a chance to learn.

The biggest change is with creating a climate of high expectations. No longer will simple memorization be more than a tool. Rote memory is not learning, it is simply recitation. Students have to own what they learn. Competence comes from understanding and comprehension. This is much harder than memorization…and it’s what makes both learning and teaching the fun and worthwhile challenge that it is.

Let’s use as an example a cooking class. As a teacher, I could spend our time just making example after example of various recipes. No explanation; just following directions and learning basic techniques. You can now prepare a selection of dishes with great consistency…so long as you have the exact ingredients in your recipe. But what if, instead, I teach you just four well-selected dishes. Within each dish we consider each of the ingredients. We think of different ways they can be used in their target dishes. We then start “playing” or perhaps a better word is experimenting. New dishes, without benefit of recipes already practiced, are created and evaluated. At the end of this class we will not only have learned some techniques and how to follow directions, but we will also have learned how to cook.

You can easily see the difference. With both methods there is learning, but with the second method there is comprehension and understanding. The first is the learning equivalent of fast-food, while the second is more like a table-filling Thanksgiving feast. Or, to finish with another food analogy: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Subjects

So, what will we teach in our comprehensive, year-round, non-grade-level school? This is not a trivial thing to consider. After all, there should be a core set of knowledge every graduate should be expected to have. On the other hand, a healthy dose of electives fosters new avenues of expression as well. It would be great to be able to make everything available to everyone, but funding levels do tend to fluctuate. I think this is a prime area where schools can gain their individual character and areas of expertise. Within a city there could be a number of schools that target different groups while also maintaining the core classes.

The Core

As literacy and numeracy are of vital importance to any developed nation, language and math classes must be considered not only vital, but of almost national security importance.

In the United States for the foreseeable future, the key language area is English. Primary reading skills will be taught via the phonics method…it’s the one that works. By the time they graduate, students should be expected to not only have a wide vocabulary but also the ability to understand reading material as diverse as graphic novels to Shakespeare to Congressional legislation. The ability to write and speak clearly and effectively, allowing for personal style, cannot be taken lightly.

But not just English. I think students should also learn two other languages as well. ASL (American Sign Language) should be thought of as mandatory. This is so as to not needlessly exclude a valuable segment of the population (which might one day include the currently hearing student), but the fact of the matter is that there are times and environments where sign language is more effective than spoken language. After this, one elective language should be strongly encouraged.

As for math…I think that letting students graduate without a good grounding in practical mathematics is just shooting ourselves in the foot. Even though I took math to advanced levels in college, I’m not blind to the fact that a lot of math is not at all useful to the average person. Arithmetic is vitally important. While some basic tables can be learned by rote, the mechanics of arithmetic need to be understood and wielded with confidence (yes…I’m talking about what was once known as “new” math).

Arithmetic, though, is not enough. Symbolic math and the training of minds to think through problems in a logical manner are fundamental to mathematical competency. So I think algebra, geometry, and algebra II/Trig should be part of the core. You need algebra to work out problems, you need geometry to learn to think logically, and you need trigonometry to come to your rescue at times (like when you have to measure a multi-story house and you don’t have a ladder…not that that ever happened to me). Beyond that, I think it’s fine to leave higher math to those want to go farther.

Now that we have language and math covered, it’s time to look to building an informed citizen. Now we’re talk civics. But not the old dry civics where learning consists of memorizing some dry words from some boring ol’ time and then regurgitating them on cue like a trained monkey. Instead, the experience should engage the students to be tied more intimately with history. Why were these things written? How do they effect us? How have they changed? What are the issues that people have with them?

From the questions that will be explored, there is clearly a great need to study history. Fortunately, the United States is a relatively new country, so there are only a few hundred years to have to cover. As is the case now, state history also needs to be covered. What is it that gives a particular state its character? Why is it special?

Tied to this is the need for students to learn how to process current events and how they are presented in various media. I think that as they become more adept at processing all of this information, students should be encouraged to enter into debates…and not necessarily on the side they initially agree with. If we want citizens who are able to think for themselves, they should be able to see the world from more than one point of view.

I think we now have a good foundation for the crux of education: literacy, numeracy, and citizenship. Fortunately there is much more to life and learning than this.

The Secondary Core

Beyond the Core subjects, there should also be subjects that students need to be versed in. Since our goal for education is not just to give the basics but to form a productive individual, the core needs more than just the primary subjects.

Studies have shown that a sound body contributes well to a sound mind. Also, a fit populace is something that is generally viewed on as a good thing. As a result, it is imperative that physical education be returned in full vigor. Since we are having class periods be longer, the time spent in P.E. won’t be wasted on changing into and out of gym clothes.

Even when I was in school, too many students flaked out when it was time to be physical (I was in a gray area…I got exempted from P.E. since I was in a varsity sport). Worse, the teachers let them. This is where evaluations have to be based on earnest participation and not on ability. To that end, students should be able to select from a short menu of choices of both group and individual activities. I think, too, that some intramural competition should be encouraged at the more advanced levels.

With us having thus tended to the body, we would be remiss in not cultivating the mind with some appreciation for the arts.

Too often courses in art and music are considered to be “fluff”. They aren’t. Learning how to express yourself with images comes up more than one would think…and not just because of Pictionary. When you are taking some quick notes, there are times when you won’t have a camera but want to remember what something looks like. If you have learned about art, you have a fighting chance to do that.

Music is more visceral, but it needs to be more than just listening. Students should have to learn at least the basics of music performance. Learning how to play an instrument requires diligence–more than with other types of learning. Patience and practice become cultivated with learning an instrument. The results can’t be faked. The student learns that persistence is a key to gaining reward, even when it seems as if the goal is constantly out of reach. Isn’t this something we would like from our workforce?

Getting back to more academic endeavors…clearly science is a must. Science is the method used to describe natural things and processes so that reliable (though not infallible) predictions can be made about past, present, and future outcomes. Science encourages students to ask, “Why?” and then to map a course to find out.

Science teaches, most of all, that not getting a desired result isn’t a failure but an answer from which will emerge new and possibly better questions. Science is about problem solving. It’s about being able to describe a process so that others can get the same results as you did.

But as important as science is to create a well-equipped graduate, the impact of faith and religion mustn’t be ignored. Given the realities of the world, studies in religious history, comparative religions, and similar subjects are so important that they should be part of the required curriculum. This is a fine-line area in regards to education.

While I’m as staunch a defender of separation of church and state as you are likely to find, I am also not so dogmatic about it to think that the simple examination of religious topics constitutes a violation. In fact, it can be argued (and is by some who are much more passionately theological) that avoidance of the discussion constitutes a kind of anti-faith faith…which can be construed as being just as bad a transgression.

So, here’s the deal: we do not overwhelming teach any one faith. We look at it in a manner that reflects the world: a number of faiths with different outlooks. Instead of comparing gods, we need to examine the subject more sociologically and historically. If any faiths do get presented, then many faiths need to be represented. We bring in expert speakers to talk about (say) Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Hinduism, and Wicca, and Shinto, and Atheism, and…well, you get the idea. In this way Congress has no fear about an establishment of religion as everyone gets their cut of the time.

(Oh…so you know and since this is my little opinion piece, it is in this comparative religion umbrella that the idea of divine creation is covered. Faith is faith and science is science. Different subjects with different methods.)

Lastly, the secondary core must look at life skills. We want to ensure that graduates can handle themselves in the real world once they are out of school.

A series of classes covering basic economics: budgets, credit, investments, etc. is mandatory for a population to maintain control of their income and expenses (and also gives them ammunition when complaining about a government that doesn’t do the same).

The practical household will cover areas as diverse as the basics of cooking to elementary home maintenance.

Finally, a course in contracts. In our litigious society we are constantly bombarded by contracts: EULAs, lease agreements, loans, marriage, etc. We should be able to read and understand the basics.

The Electives

Now students will get to pick and choose the sorts of classes to take. Students can focus on areas of interest, or go for a more broad or practical education.

For the most part, the electives follow-up on the Core and Secondary Core subjects: more math, more science, more history, etc. But more than that, they will also offer beginning vocational instruction.

With subjects ranging from coaching to publishing to welding, students should have the opportunity to explore options and a variety of skills.

Testing

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. For every subject as well as at the end to determine graduation, there need to be tests to evaluate if a student has actually learned. But not just students…teachers, too. I think that the test used for teacher certification should be drawn from the same source as those for the students, but the tests should be longer and the standard for passing made higher. Teachers should be more skilled that the students, don’t you think?

Each class will have its own test. In general, these will be randomly drawn from a large pool of questions that cover the full extent of what is expected will be taught. These question will also have an annual turnover of about 20%. This ensures that teachers can’t teach to a particular test and strongly encourages comprehension of the subject. Additionally, an oral exam should be given to allow both students and examiners to establish if a student’s knowledge has depth and is not simply a brain-dump.

I propose that the timing of the test can be at a student’s discretion, allowing (of course) for availability of examiners. If someone is gifted and can pass a test after one day, great. If they instead need a few years, that’s fine, too. No rush.

It should be noted that some subjects/classes will need different testing procedures…physical education and music performance come to mind as examples.

Graduating

Since our goal from the beginning has been to form productive and knowledgeable citizens by the time students graduate, we also must temper our rigor with the realities of the world. Not everyone will be good at everything. Also, as young people mature, they find that they have increasing financial needs. As a result, I think that some accommodation can be made.

I’m thinking that full graduation should require passing all the Core courses and allow for not passing one of the Secondary Core subjects. After that, once you pass some national minimum number of other courses (large enough to give a reasonably broad education) you can take your comprehensive written and oral examination.

The comprehensive exam will basically be an amalgam of the exams the student took on their way to graduation–both written and oral. You see, retention is also a facet of learning. You’ll either pass or have to (re-)take more classes.

While there should be some perk to graduating (I would like to tie it to being able to vote…but that would require amending the Constitution; something more practical like reduced rates on loans would be easier), there can be something we can do before that point.

When the core and at least 3/4 of the remaining minimum coursework have been passed, students will be eligible to work, should they have the desire or need. At this point, they should be able to not be a hindrance to employers. Since students are able to go through the system at their own pace, they have control on this aspect of their lives.

Some Final Thoughts

Now that I’ve gone through the plan, the careful reader will no doubt have noticed that this all doesn’t really seem so strange at all. In fact, it bears a lot of similarities to how students go through a traditional university, except on a much larger scale. I don’t think of this as a flaw. While the public school system has devolved into a horror, higher education in the U.S. is still very well thought of.

Even in this new plan, some aspects of the subjects pose the needs for additional solutions. The need for students to learn the civics of their state, for instance? What of the military kid who finds themselves in a different state every year?

A different problem arises from the increase with physical education. Here’s it’s a matter of insurance. Well, if we fix the insurance industry as well, then it won’t be a problem. Assuming we haven’t gotten to that, it might be easiest to put schools into a sort of liability bubble where controls can be maintained.

I will say that of some small concern is the likelihood of students of varying ages attending the same classes. Obviously the practicalities of the real world (e.g. hormones, bullying, etc.) will likely force some sorts of segregation. Would that it wasn’t necessary, but for the safety of those younger and smaller, it might have to be designed in from the start.

And lest you think that I think all of these students are going to be scholarly angels…well, I don’t. In fact, I think the more trouble you make the more you will have to learn. Suspensions and expulsions aren’t the answer…in fact, it is often a goal. No, causing trouble won’t get you out of school, it will just prolong your stay.

The hope here is that by being constantly exposed to the expectations of the society, the troublesome student might figure out why it’s important that civility be the norm. On the other hand, if they simply become well-educated criminals…well, at least that’s sort of a step up. If nothing else, they will be on equal footing with some of the current international crop of baddies.

In the end, what we are shooting for is something better than what we have now. Jaime Escalante showed us that it isn’t class or situation that has doomed our children, it’s our culture of low (if not non-existent) expectations. Frankly, I find it insulting that so many are satisfied with what we have. That self-motivated students manage to gain knowledge despite the system is a credit to those young people and the special teachers who influence them.

This is in no way meant to imply that I don’t think that many teachers aren’t dedicated and caring professionals. If we hadn’t saddled them with self-serving bureaucracies and initiatives that have not only been ill-conceived but poorly executed and funded to boot, then I think that the kids would have been better served.

Obviously this plan will require a very substantial pool of teachers. Since the certification process will be less onerous, and more consistent as it will be national and not state-based, why not draw from the large pool of recent college graduates? Say, for every year of teaching the government forgives a college semester’s-worth of loans (or maybe just the interest)?

So, I’ve thrown out what I’m thinking. It’s time that we all start looking to find an answer to our institution of public education that is less of a system than it is a condition. Unfortunately, fixing education is very complicated. This article barely starts to touch on what we need to be thinking about. What I have proposed here might be totally unrealistic, but at least I’m offering up a solution. If you come up with something better or more practical, I for one would love to hear it.

Do we truly care about our children? Are we ready to show them?