Brittany asked: "Do you think that one standardized curriculum should be enforced nationally?"
I do not think that ONE standardized national curriculum should be enforced. I do, however, feel that there is a dire need for standardized curricula to be instituted in the US.
Standardized curricula would do much for the educational attainment and advancement of American students. It would insure that all students are given equal opportunity to learn, and that students do not miss out on vital information and educational experiences due to the particular practices in a region. It would also (hopefully) insure that all students have a roughly equal base of knowledge and skills to build upon as they continue their education to the post-secondary level, and insure a wide range of educational experiences, as well as enabling the collection of meaningful data comparing educational attainment of students between states.
This does not imply that the entirety of a student's academic career through secondary school be mandated by the state. However, certain standards should apply, expecting a minimum level of competence in reading, writing, math, and science, with certain flexibility in the curriculum for students to explore interests, including deeper study into one field or more.
A useful example of this is the UK's education system. In the UK, a national curriculum is enforced from the ages of 5 to 16. During this time, students take a standard, state-mandated curriculum with a core of math, science, and English, as well as other subjects, including history, modern foreign language, art, and physical education, required at various levels. After age 16, students can opt for two additional years of secondary education, in which they are given flexibility in their course selections, and acts as an introduction to university-level work (passing those last two years of secondary school is the equivalent of a year of university-level study -- hence most UK undergraduate programs being 3 years rather than 4). As an alternative, students having completed their 11th year of schooling can go to vocational school to learn a trade. Despite its flaws, it gives all students a base of knowledge to build on.
To end with a question: Should students all be expected to take traditional "academic subjects" to age 18, or should we allow more flexibility for technical/vocational education?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Quality Education: A Response
Jessica asked "What do you think is quality education? What materials should be used for quality education?"
I think that what constitutes a quality education is as much about the teaching style as the materials used, and each subject has a most-useful style for teaching to maximize student interest and learning. The methods and materials should be scaled to the age and maturity of students.
In a nutshell, in primary education, emphasis should be placed on skill development -- memorizing simple math operations (if you can't add two plus two in your head, something's wrong), learning how to write properly -- and basic introductions to subject areas -- first introduction to the narrative of history, basic studies of the various fields of science, the beginnings of literary analysis.
Secondary education should build on the foundation of primary education and emphasize critical thinking skills (as seen in literature discussion, historical analysis, mathematical reasoning, and scientific exploration) while introducing students to the skills and concepts needed for advanced study (thus, English emphasizes writing well and discussing and analyzing literature, History focuses on analysis and evaluation of primary sources, Math on understanding and applying mathematical principles, Science on understanding the fundamentals of how the world works and how to create and test hypotheses about specific questions).
The materials used are certainly important, especially in secondary school (English should present a range of classic and contemporary works, History use primary source documents alongside textbooks, Science use experiments to help illustrate concepts, etc), but equally important is HOW the information is conveyed. A good teacher is necessary to facilitate class discussion and help explain concepts to students in ways that are relevant to the students. As an example, one of the best history teachers I had in prep school would explain the historical events we were studying by putting them into a hypothetical scenario involving the school. "What the British did with forcing quartering was like if the US government decided that the 101st Airborne Division was going to camp out on our campus, and we had to provide them food and shelter."
Perhaps the last important aspect of quality education is WHAT, exactly, to teach. Up through secondary school, a liberal arts education is, I think, most appropriate, to allow students to explore academic subjects and find what they most enjoy and are most proficient at. Ideally, students would combine study of literature, history, math, and science with art, philosophy, and foreign language study. However, this track of study may not be appropriate for all students. There are, of course, many jobs that are vital to the functioning of our economy that do not require a liberal arts education and a four year degree. Plumbers do not need calculus to fix a kitchen sink, and builders need not be conversant in Kant to construct a house.
Before I get too long-winded, I shall end with a question or two: What role should schools (primary and secondary in particular) play in helping students determine a career path, and how should they go about doing this?
I think that what constitutes a quality education is as much about the teaching style as the materials used, and each subject has a most-useful style for teaching to maximize student interest and learning. The methods and materials should be scaled to the age and maturity of students.
In a nutshell, in primary education, emphasis should be placed on skill development -- memorizing simple math operations (if you can't add two plus two in your head, something's wrong), learning how to write properly -- and basic introductions to subject areas -- first introduction to the narrative of history, basic studies of the various fields of science, the beginnings of literary analysis.
Secondary education should build on the foundation of primary education and emphasize critical thinking skills (as seen in literature discussion, historical analysis, mathematical reasoning, and scientific exploration) while introducing students to the skills and concepts needed for advanced study (thus, English emphasizes writing well and discussing and analyzing literature, History focuses on analysis and evaluation of primary sources, Math on understanding and applying mathematical principles, Science on understanding the fundamentals of how the world works and how to create and test hypotheses about specific questions).
The materials used are certainly important, especially in secondary school (English should present a range of classic and contemporary works, History use primary source documents alongside textbooks, Science use experiments to help illustrate concepts, etc), but equally important is HOW the information is conveyed. A good teacher is necessary to facilitate class discussion and help explain concepts to students in ways that are relevant to the students. As an example, one of the best history teachers I had in prep school would explain the historical events we were studying by putting them into a hypothetical scenario involving the school. "What the British did with forcing quartering was like if the US government decided that the 101st Airborne Division was going to camp out on our campus, and we had to provide them food and shelter."
Perhaps the last important aspect of quality education is WHAT, exactly, to teach. Up through secondary school, a liberal arts education is, I think, most appropriate, to allow students to explore academic subjects and find what they most enjoy and are most proficient at. Ideally, students would combine study of literature, history, math, and science with art, philosophy, and foreign language study. However, this track of study may not be appropriate for all students. There are, of course, many jobs that are vital to the functioning of our economy that do not require a liberal arts education and a four year degree. Plumbers do not need calculus to fix a kitchen sink, and builders need not be conversant in Kant to construct a house.
Before I get too long-winded, I shall end with a question or two: What role should schools (primary and secondary in particular) play in helping students determine a career path, and how should they go about doing this?
The Perils of Multiculturalism
Earlier today, the Prime Minister of the UK launched an attack on multiculturalism as it has been expressed in the UK and Europe. His criticism, in summary, is that the "hands-off approach" to multiculturalism has created a fragmented society that can foster extremism, and called on European governments to pursue "much more active, muscular liberalism."
There is certainly an argument for taking care with multiculturalism. We do not want to entirely quash the traditions from which our various citizens hail, particularly in a nation like ours that is built, in a very real sense, on the backs of immigrants. Undoubtedly, almost all of us can trace our ancestry back to another continent -- Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands. Surely, many of these cultures have positive things to contribute to society. The question becomes, then, to what extent do we allow varying cultures to express themselves, and to what extent do we insist on integration into "mainstream" society? Do we allows Muslims to practice Sharia law in their communities, or push our system of laws on them? Do we insist that immigrants learn English, or allow them to continue to speak their native (where non-English) tongues? And, perhaps most relevant to us... to what extent do we teach to, and about, the varying cultures that make up our society?
I do not purport to have any answers. I only provide the questions.
There is certainly an argument for taking care with multiculturalism. We do not want to entirely quash the traditions from which our various citizens hail, particularly in a nation like ours that is built, in a very real sense, on the backs of immigrants. Undoubtedly, almost all of us can trace our ancestry back to another continent -- Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands. Surely, many of these cultures have positive things to contribute to society. The question becomes, then, to what extent do we allow varying cultures to express themselves, and to what extent do we insist on integration into "mainstream" society? Do we allows Muslims to practice Sharia law in their communities, or push our system of laws on them? Do we insist that immigrants learn English, or allow them to continue to speak their native (where non-English) tongues? And, perhaps most relevant to us... to what extent do we teach to, and about, the varying cultures that make up our society?
I do not purport to have any answers. I only provide the questions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)