How Can The Education System Stay Relevant?

[Kellan Sullivan]

I'm posting this here, rather than in chat, because I think it's as much an AH-discussion as a chat-topic.

That said, I've often heard people bemoan the fact that the modern education system is out-of-date (various sources ascribe the reasons being as various as schools functioning on a assembly-line mentality or to the work being pointless/irrelevant). After watching the Owen Wilson-Vince Vaughn movie "The Internship" on the weekend wherein the one character says "the American dream that you guys were brought up on? It's just a dream now" (plus having a mother and aunt who are both in the education system - one as a high school teacher, one as a university professor) which got me wondering.

It can't be as simple as the curriculum being revised (not saying that thiscouldn't help though), since by us, such revision happens every few years with no noticeable change (me, and my two older siblings were all three on different curriculums during our school career). In effect, Klaus Schwab says that the education system is broken, and should be overhauled in its entirety in order to be able to cope with the advances of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This seems to indicate to me that the "system" is broken (and I've heard both my mother and aunt compare notes on that), yet we just seem to be running like a hamster in the wheel (despite the fact that the wheel is broken).

So, the question is, how can the education system "keep up" with the times? Does it, as Professor Schwab says, need to be restructured in its entirety? And the question then arises of "how" would be a good way for it to be overhauled so that the average high school graduate will be able to get the most mileage out of their education?

 

[Salvador79]

I don't think schools and institutions of higher education are really "broken". Large-scale international competency assessments show positive middle-term trends, on a generally acceptable-to-good level, for the acquisition of the most crucial cultural skills and techniques. Sure there are tons of problems (inequality resulting in unequal learning opportunities, bad inclusion of recent immigrants and special needs learners), and of course our ever-changing society, economy, and culture will and must always demand the education system to change. But this is happening, and it has happened ever since we've built up professional learning institutions.

What exactly are you criticising about our schools and/or universities?
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is about a lot of things. Sure, creative thinking occupies an important place, and that's not exactly something schools are perfect at fostering. But other skills are central to the FIR, too: informational developments require mathematical skills, and the explosion of scripturally available information means reading and writing skills are more relevant than ever. All of this schools teach rather effectively. The paradigm shift in educational thinking - away from passing on propositional knowledge and towards fostering problem-solving competencies - is showing effects in the schools of many countries, and it is the best institutionalised learning can do to prepare young people for the society of the 21st century.

But honestly, schools have always had a bad press and will always have. And there will always be things which schools just aren't suited to teach. Thinking "outside the box" is one of these things schools are not so good at teaching; just like building up stable partnerships and love relations, managing your emotional balance etc. Some things you need to learn outside of school - it's good to demand the best possible performance from everyone involved in teaching the next generation, but one ought be aware of the fact that school isn't a perfection delivery system, and it's not the universal fix for all our problems.

 

[finch]

I have a little knowledge of the education system in my own time at school, and now I have none. I believe to old UK system was to ensure a division in the population. Rich kids went to what was considered to be a good school, on to university and more or less guaranteed a good well-paid job. The rest were given a basic education suitable for the manual worker. It became obvious that being highly educated is not the same as being intelligent and industrial decline meant the workforce was not equipped for the modern day. Education was handed over to the middle class to reform. Their answer is that everybody should go through an academic education ending with time in a university. The country did not need that or could actually afford it. So the young feel deprived of the free university education and are less willing to become manual workers. Or are completely alienated by the system. So the UK is now reliant on immigration to drive our delivery vans and fix our roofs. I don't pretend to know the best way forward. But it should be less middle class in attitude and a priority to be given to preparing students to be able to earn a living. Opportunities in education should not be a single entity but a varied one

 

[Skollar]

You know, I was initially worried about responding and saying things because my responses are heavily based upon my wife who's currently a 5th grade teacher, as that would most likely be regarded as current politics. But then I remembered the way education is treated by some politicians has been going on for decades.

Personally, I think a big part of why education has been failing is because, quite honestly, there are a lot of people in the USA that want it to fail. Basically it boils down to people not wanting to pay for it because they either don't have kids in it anymore or never did because they were in private institutions. Granted you'll find that mentality in almost any country towards any government program someone might not like, but with regards to education especially you're really shooting yourself in the foot later down the line. I think a lot of people that disagree with public education fail to see beyond the short term of what it's currently costing them to see that we've been failing to keep up our rates of educating our future doctors and other required jobs.

Another issue is the fact that somewhere along the lines it was decided by people in HR doing the hiring that the only way to decide if someone is "teachable" is by requiring a BA for even entry level positions. It's lessened some in recent years, but 5-10 years ago entry level positions where they'd teach you the job anyways were requiring a BA to even be considered. As a result, having a BA and going to college has been so normalized and expected, much to the profit of universities, that kids are taught from elementary school on that the only way to succeed is to go to a regular college. What doesn't get said though is that a lot of trades don't require as much schooling, get paid more initially and can have a more realistic upper ceiling in terma of pay. But because a university degree is expected/normal, talk of going into a trade is rarely discussed.

Now, as to when in the past could this be fixed? Honestly, I don't know when it started. It'd be easy to blame the 80s for their rightward shift in domestic political disscussion that began shaming public education as lesser than private Christian schooling, but probably before that. Most likely whenever it became politically feasible to bring in a new Secretary of Education to put in place "your" view of how education should be. But then, that's a problem with either party and has been for decades. I mean, the longest tenured Secretary of Education was 8 years, and even that was because it was during Bill Clinton's terms.

 

[Mikestone8]

Since the teaching is necessarily done by people a generation or two older than those they teach, aren't all education systems inevitably going to be out of date, given that the world the kids grow up into will always be different from the one the educators grew up in?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Since the teaching is necessarily done by people a generation or two older than those they teach, aren't all education systems inevitably going to be out of date, given that the world the kids grow up into will always be different from the one the educators grew up in?

At school none of my teachers were under 40yo, oldest one was my biology teacher, who was 67yo (the only reason he'd been working past retirement age was because they couldn't get a replacement for him). So I could imagine this being an issue, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. That 67yo biology teacher and my 60yo maths teacher had more enthusiasm for their jobs than some of the youngest lecturers I had at university (I know, I know, apples and oranges, but one would think that a 67yo who has six hour long classes per day of 30-35 kids each, aged 14-18yo, should be less enthusiastic than a twenty-something lecturer who has one two hour class per day, of only ten students).

 

[oshron]

Personally, I think a big part of why education has been failing is because, quite honestly, there are a lot of people in the USA that want it to fail. Basically it boils down to people not wanting to pay for it because they either don't have kids in it anymore or never did because they were in private institutions. Granted you'll find that mentality in almost any country towards any government program someone might not like, but with regards to education especially you're really shooting yourself in the foot later down the line. I think a lot of people that disagree with public education fail to see beyond the short term of what it's currently costing them to see that we've been failing to keep up our rates of educating our future doctors and other required jobs.

that's unfortunately true for alot of things. while the current generation is stereotyped as the "I want it now!" generation with regards to media (streaming services and smartphones with mobile games and such) the way i see it it's really the previous generation--the one that my parents belong to, and the one which is currently in power solely by virtue of being the experienced adults, in contrast to young adults like myself and my circle of friends IRL--that are the "I want it now!" generation, but for everything else instead of media. and that means that if they don't see any immediate benefit to them, personally, as individuals, from anything then it's not worth investing anything so they don't and the next several generations are going to have to deal with their mistakes, and that's a big part of why we might be looking at biosphere collapse because of climate change.

 

[GeographyDude]

In modern economies, the main evolved function of schools is that of a babysitting service.

I mean, learning is something we do best as human beings, but typically not on someone else's regimented schedule.

 

[Salvador79]

In modern economies, the main evolved function of schools is that of a babysitting service.

I mean, learning is something we do best as human beings, but typically not on someone else's regimented schedule.

Isn't that mystifying things? What does it mean to learn "as a human being", how are we not human beings in school and who has shown that humans cannot learn on schedule?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

In modern economies, the main evolved function of schools is that of a babysitting service.

I mean, learning is something we do best as human beings, but typically not on someone else's regimented schedule.

No, it isn't. You get kids who peak academically in high school, and kids who peak academically at college, some even later. Hell, my grandfather never finished high school and never even thought about college and he was a lot smarter/wiser than both his brothers who both finished high school and went to university.

I heard once that they shouldn't even think of letting guys do something like schooling during puberty. Rather, they should just dump them on an island somewhere until the hormones have calmed down and it's possible to have a normal conversation without chest-beating or the like, and then start schooling them. (Sounds a bit stupid. If you dump them on an island, and they all have raging hormones and want to kill each other etc, how are they going to have to learn to have a normal conversation? *scratches head*)

 

[GeographyDude]

Isn't that mystifying things? . . .

Maybe a little.

But I think schools do it more than I do. For example, they raise "staying in your seat" to cosmic importance of the nth degree. And as an experienced teacher explained, because boys tend to have less padding on their buttocks, they tend to squirm around more. And just as something as simple as that can start a whole negative track in which the boy begins to be labelled more, punished more, less positive stuff expected and predicted for him, fewer positive opportunities, etc.

I'm not a parent myself, although I am an uncle and there are people I care about.

I'm intrigued by parents who experiment with "unschooling," although reading might be the one important skill which doesn't come 100% naturally.

 

[manav95]

Maybe a little.

But I think schools do it more than I do. For example, they raise "staying in your seat" to cosmic importance of the nth degree. And as an experienced teacher explained, because boys tend to have less padding on their buttocks, they tend to squirm around more. And just as something as simple as that can start a whole negative track in which the boy begins to be labelled more, punished more, less positive stuff expected and predicted for him, fewer positive opportunities, etc.

I'm not a parent myself, although I am an uncle and there are people I care about.

I'm intrigued by parents who experiment with "unschooling," although reading might be the one important skill which doesn't come 100% naturally.

What boys need is discipline and an outlet for their aggression fueled by hormones. I don't mean to be sexist, but I remember when I was that age and I got into trouble fairly often.

 

[Salvador79]

Maybe a little.

But I think schools do it more than I do. For example, they raise "staying in your seat" to cosmic importance of the nth degree. And as an experienced teacher explained, because boys tend to have less padding on their buttocks, they tend to squirm around more. And just as something as simple as that can start a whole negative track in which the boy begins to be labelled more, punished more, less positive stuff expected and predicted for him, fewer positive opportunities, etc.

I'm not a parent myself, although I am an uncle and there are people I care about.

I'm intrigued by parents who experiment with "unschooling," although reading might be the one important skill which doesn't come 100% naturally.

Well, yes, some teachers stress quiet and discipline a lot. But that's not a universal thing, either. The elementary school my older son attends isn't structured so that they have to sit still so much. And it is a regular state school.

Unschooling is not intriguing me, it's irresponsible, and Most often done by lunatic fringers.

 

[GeographyDude]

youtube: ‘Humans Need Not Apply’

But if there aren’t really enough good jobs for the next generation . . . to me, that’s a problem which is equally important if not more so!

And I, for one, do believe that the slow motion crisis of automation is a real thing.

 

[unclepatrick]

In modern economies, the main evolved function of schools is that of a babysitting service.

I mean, learning is something we do best as human beings, but typically not on someone else's regimented schedule.

If you really believe that all a teacher does is baby sit kids, I will be happy to write you a recommendation for a job in a Public High School.

 

[GeographyDude]

If you really believe that all a teacher does is baby sit kids, I will be happy to write you a recommendation for a job in a Public High School.

I did not mean it that way.

I meant employers, parents, and the school system itself depend on children, teenagers, and young adults being at school a good 7 hours, maybe more. And this is also why leaving the school grounds is considered among the gravest of sins.

And so, if we decided to allow the child to move between play, learning, and being with adults as they work in a much more free-form way, well . . . the system is just not set up for something like that.

 

[Jukra]

I did not mean it that way.

I meant employers, parents, and the school system itself depend on children, teenagers, and young adults being at school a good 7 hours, maybe more. And this is also why leaving the school grounds is considered among the gravest of sins.

And so, if we decided to allow the child to move between play, learning, and being with adults as they work in a much more free-form way, well . . . the system is just not set up for something like that.

Although Finnish system is in no way perfect, we allow for longer recesses, shorter school days and less homework than most countries, and require MA for even primary school (7-12yo) teachers. Still we do quite ok in various international studies.

 

[Mikestone8]

At school none of my teachers were under 40yo, oldest one was my biology teacher, who was 67yo (the only reason he'd been working past retirement age was because they couldn't get a replacement for him). So I could imagine this being an issue, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. That 67yo biology teacher and my 60yo maths teacher had more enthusiasm for their jobs than some of the youngest lecturers I had at university (I know, I know, apples and oranges, but one would think that a 67yo who has six hour long classes per day of 30-35 kids each, aged 14-18yo, should be less enthusiastic than a twenty-something lecturer who has one two hour class per day, of only ten students).

The OP wasn't about lack of enthusiasm, but about "keeping up with the times", whatever that may be construed to mean.

I shouldn't imagine that the age of a maths or biology teacher greatly matters. Such subjects probably stay much the same from one generation to the next.

It is of course great that those old boys were able to fire your interest. Is the moral perhaps that the whole "keep up with the times" business is overrated, and that as long as teachers can capture their students' interest in a subject, being "behind the times" in some areas is of little importance?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

If you really believe that all a teacher does is baby sit kids, I will be happy to write you a recommendation for a job in a Public High School.

Agreed. Although admittedly I've heard stories from my mom about how parents basically expect her to (figuratively) chew for their kids too.

youtube: ‘Humans Need Not Apply’

But if there aren’t really enough good jobs for the next generation . . . to me, that’s a problem which is equally important if not more so!

And I, for one, do believe that the slow motion crisis of automation is a real thing.

This is something I was wondering. Harari suggests that humans will be more or less completely outmoded by c.2050, and that the stress of someone having to not only CHANGE jobs (he uses the example of a Walmart cashier having to become a drone operator) in five-ten years (because of said outmoding) but having to do so MORE than once or twice. Both he and Schwalb believe the key to overcoming this "problem" lies in the education system (and has for some 100years almost) but are vague on the specifics of what/how the education system is failed/needs to change.

 

[Kalga]

Well, there's always the dystopian option of selling a good chunk of the education system directly to corporations, as in letting large companies & corps to decide what their future wage slave labor need to know.

The government is still forking out the funding, just the corporations having most of the say in what gets taught. Basically a government subsidizing corporate training.

Sure, it'll end up with the majority of the population being horribly ignorant in anything outside of specific job related stuff and leading to the death of the arts but that's a small price to pay for greater corporate profits right? Also a less politically educated populace will be even easier to control by the establishment, so that's a feature.