Chester E. Flinn Jr. (a former assistant secretary at the Department of Education) has a perhaps well-intentioned but overall extremely misguided essay in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. (Because of the way the Wall Street Journal handles subscribers, the best way to find the article is to click here for the Google News search and then follow the first result to the WSJ site.)
The purpose of the essay is to present the case for expanding the role of public education in the lives of American children. Specifically, the "core" subjects: math, science, literature and geography. However, Flinn's essay assumes the value of those core subjects without explaining an overarching philosophy of education, which makes his essay ultimately unconvincing.
Flinn points out that American children spend less time in school than do children in many other countries around the world. He cites reasonable data, and is generally convincing that that is the case. What's the problem with spending less time in class, then?
Flinn acts as though this acknowledges all of the arguments against a more structured, core-centric school system: "Yes, it will disrupt everything from school-bus schedules to family vacations." This is clearly a straw-man, a weaker opposition created because he is unable to confront the real issues with his proposal.
The American school is already segmented into sections of a day with bells, reminiscent of the industrial-era factories that the school replaced. A strict separation of subjects is adhered to: math in one room, history in another, music in a third. Tests, grades, it all conspires to force students towards success in the core. But the most successful students are invariably those who find their own passions, their own interests. Somehow, through the strict rules of the military academies that pass for public schools, they find a way to pursue their own path.
Flinn would like to see more structure. He wants less "wasted" time, and more time spent memorizing multiplication tables. Less "free" time, more time spent writing analytical essays about literature.
What we need, though, is a shift in the opposite direction: schools need to become less structured and give students more opportunities to find their own class. The educational system needs to provide the opportunities for education and the encouragement to learn, without the overly strict, paternalistic control that is characteristic of the modern school.
We need creativity, and less "core."
[Note: You can see some of my other thoughts on increased structure in the school environment in this post.]
The purpose of the essay is to present the case for expanding the role of public education in the lives of American children. Specifically, the "core" subjects: math, science, literature and geography. However, Flinn's essay assumes the value of those core subjects without explaining an overarching philosophy of education, which makes his essay ultimately unconvincing.
Flinn points out that American children spend less time in school than do children in many other countries around the world. He cites reasonable data, and is generally convincing that that is the case. What's the problem with spending less time in class, then?
This additional time spent learning is one big reason that youngsters from many Asian nations routinely out-score their American counterparts on international tests of science and math...What Flinn does not claim, because I think he realizes that he can't prove it, is that better scores on "international tests of science and math," better "test scores," better "college-readiness," or higher "understanding of literature, geography or algebra" will create better citizens of the modern world. The world, especially America, needs more critical thinkers, more people who are able to think through problems, more leaders. School can help with these skills, but it is not the definitive answer. A more structured school environment certainly is not the solution.
It's not all wasted time but neither are these minutes spent in ways that boost test scores, enhance college-readiness or deepen pupils' understanding of literature, geography or algebra.
Flinn acts as though this acknowledges all of the arguments against a more structured, core-centric school system: "Yes, it will disrupt everything from school-bus schedules to family vacations." This is clearly a straw-man, a weaker opposition created because he is unable to confront the real issues with his proposal.
The American school is already segmented into sections of a day with bells, reminiscent of the industrial-era factories that the school replaced. A strict separation of subjects is adhered to: math in one room, history in another, music in a third. Tests, grades, it all conspires to force students towards success in the core. But the most successful students are invariably those who find their own passions, their own interests. Somehow, through the strict rules of the military academies that pass for public schools, they find a way to pursue their own path.
Flinn would like to see more structure. He wants less "wasted" time, and more time spent memorizing multiplication tables. Less "free" time, more time spent writing analytical essays about literature.
What we need, though, is a shift in the opposite direction: schools need to become less structured and give students more opportunities to find their own class. The educational system needs to provide the opportunities for education and the encouragement to learn, without the overly strict, paternalistic control that is characteristic of the modern school.
We need creativity, and less "core."
[Note: You can see some of my other thoughts on increased structure in the school environment in this post.]
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage commenters to use their real name, although I do not require it.
Blogger employs an automatic spam filtering algorithm for comments. If a non-spam comment has been filtered out, email source4politics@gmail.com and the issue will be investigated.