Jump to content
  • entries
    7
  • comments
    32
  • views
    9,411

The education system is fundamentally flawed.


The statement that is the title is an opinion. To determine if a system is flawed, the purpose of the system must first be established. Once it's established, and only then, can the determination be made if it's functioning correctly or not. So, this prompts the question: What is the purpose of the education system? To educate, of course! But the deeper and real question is, to teach what?

 

Currently, the education system roughly works like this:

  • Elementary school teaches you basic English and math skills. There's also basic religion thrown in there, physical education and... nothing else comes to mind from what I can remember. Science, I guess, but even then, nothing ground breaking.
  • Secondary (high) school teaches you the foundation for advanced math, science (atoms, weather, etc then specializes in chemistry, biology and physics), more religion and English. These four subjects are the major aspects of these four years. The anchor subjects, if you will.
  • Post-secondary teaches you (more or less - more on this later) the tools you need to be qualified for your chosen career.

Elementary school, fundamentally, from a curriculum perspective, is more or less acceptable. The basics are there: reading, writing, addition/subtraction/multiplication/division - basic things you need to know to function in society. However, the problem with elementary school is that they coddle their students. I'll take my brother, for example. Let's call him John (not his real name, taken after John Doe). John is lazy, and doesn't do homework. John is in absolutely zero danger of failing his grade. The policy is not to fail students, because it 'hurts their feelings' and affects their self-esteem. Intention is good, I don't dispute that, but it's unrealistic. As a result of this policy, My brother's grown up in a bubble; he has no sense of failure, it's not something he's experienced before. If he doesn't hand in an assignment, the teacher will say something like this:

"It was due last week, John. You really need to hurry up and get this project in to me."

 

"John, you're late with your assignment. Once you get to high school, this will be unacceptable."

 

There's no real incentive to do anything and there's no real understanding of the consequences of inaction. The words of the teacher fall deaf onto John and his peers. They nod, say okay and they understand, and they think they do, but they don't. They've never fallen before. They've never been told that they've failed something and need to deal with the consequences. They've always been caught before they hit the ground, whether they realize it or not, and are living in a false sense of reality. As I'm sure the readers of this are aware, the world does not catch you. This is setting up young children to have unrealistic expectations of life and is setting them up for catastrophic failure.

 

Secondary school is a disaster, almost a complete waste of time. For anyone over the age of twenty, someone that may rent, have a job, possibly owns a car or even have considering owning a house, I ask you this: What have you learned from high school that helped you with these things? Personally, my four years prepared me for nothing. There was a half-semester of Careers (which, really, was a joke) and a half-semester of Civics. Both, in theory, are life-essential courses, but the curriculum foundation makes them a joke. Half a semester is several weeks, that's not a lot of time.

 

Besides Careers & Civics, what is taught that's essential? Geography is arguable, you have a general sense of the world's politics and a rough idea where all the countries are. Math sets you up for higher-level courses (more on that later). Science gives you a general idea of how atoms work and elements, which is nice, but not something you need to know on a daily basis. World Religion is arguably relevant, but even then, it's falls in the category of Geography, which is "nice to know, but not essential".

 

What is essential in secondary school? I struggle to answer that question. Besides the aforementioned Careers & Civics, I can only think of the Automotive class, which at least teaches you basic vehicle maintenance. That's something that everyone should know.

 

What about English? That course doesn't teach you anything, besides trying to get you to think a certain way. English teachers are notorious for their "my way or the highway" way of thinking in regards to symbolism. If you don't interpret the piece in the way that they feel is correct, then you're wrong. This is so counter productive, it boggles my mind. One of the goals of high school is supposed to be to teach you to think for yourself, but this is accomplishing the exact opposite. On top of that, it's with the topic of symbolism. Symbolism is one of the most opinionated and subjective topics in the entire English subject. Symbolism is open to interpretation, that's the whole point of it.

 

Secondly, in regards to English, the courses fail in the very name. In my post secondary education, there was a mandatory (required) English remedial class. The professor explained that there was so many complaints by other professors as to the state of the assignments being submitted, that this course had to be created and made mandatory. The second half was productive - showing us how to write various types of reports (it was a technical campus, associated with a university), but the first half was basic grammar. Literally, basic grammar and usage. We'd have a week dedicated for each topic and a quiz at the end of the week, to determine if we were proficient enough with the topic to not be required to go to extra seminars. Such topics included: commas, semicolons and when to type out or spell numbers. These are all things that should be taught in secondary or even elementary school. I won't even get into the tuition cause and issues associated with this.

 

Another course that stands out in my mind that I took in post secondary was pre-calculus. The second time I took the course (don't ask), it all became so clear. The random and dis-jointed Math courses in secondary school were all coming together as the foundation to calculus. That made the struggles through those four years seem justified, almost. But, really, how useful is pre-calculus? I can't say that I use it on a daily basis. It's not something that a normal person uses in their day to day lives, besides really cheesy pick-up lines. This, to me, is a sign that the post secondary system is failing at their job: to make us the best possible person we can be in our chosen field. However, it's not really their fault, as they're picking up the slack from secondary schools.

 

Secondary school is where the blame lies, squarely. Not solely, but significantly. The system needs to change, or it will become like the financial system in recent years, it'll crash in on itself. Much like the financial system dramatically affected society, so will this. A generation of young people is being unleashed upon the world that has no idea how to do basic things: buy a car, rent a house, get a job, buy a house.

 

I was planning on including an example of a ridiculous mortgage offer from a bank, to prove that I wouldn't know if it was a ridiculous offer or not, due to the failure of my education system. The sad thing, though, is that it occurred to me that I don't even know enough about how mortgages work (and how to get one) to be able to come up with an example. That's pretty sad, isn't it?

 

Note: My experiences are based primarily on the Ontario provincial education system.

  • Like 4

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

Zombie

Posted

Excellent blog :) Subjects I'd add as important - maybe missing in the US? - are history, languages and "citizenship".

History
If we don't understand where we've come from how can we have useful input into where we're going? Things like voting and decision-making? If we've no knowledge or understanding of the past, and past mistakes, how can we possibly expect to become effective voters and good decision-makers?

Languages.
Learning another language is, in my experience, the most effective way to learn your own language and to learn about other world cultures. And it broadens the mind. And it's intellectually demanding.

Citizenship
Kids are expected to lean all this from their mums and dads - voting, mortgages, retirement, health, driving cars and stuff - but we know this doesn't work for many. But there are good jobs in these areas too - as well as equipping kids with practical skills on how to live independent lives as adults they may pick up on career ideas too.

As I see it the purpose of "education" is to expand the mind and enable kids to develop intellectual skills and tools to help them identify where their natural talents are so they can live happy and productive lives. Good career guidance is an essential part of identifying where those skills can be used but it is not the purpose of education to churn out drones for employment. Vocational skills may be important for many - crucial even - but they can and should be learned and developed towards the end of the education process.
 

W_L

Posted

Zombie, you do know he's criticizing a british model syatem with all that stuff :P

 

I tend to agree with AD as technical education has more applications in learning and skill sets than a classical education founded on humanities I.e. history, religion, general english, and secondary languages.

 

I liked learning latin, but I do not use it in my life, nor do I need to recite the aeneid for an audience at a forum :P

 

The classical route of education is not a panacea for world issues as its advocates once believed, they also thought "civilized" european or even chinese culture were superior to less advanced peoples. In asia, this type of classical confucian orthodoxy kept societies in stagnation for centuries.

 

In Europe, despite renaissance development in concepts, antiquity knowledge reigned supreme for centuries. Knowing the arguments of plato and socrates does not create usable knowledge.

 

I have said this before, knowledge without context is useless. Regimenting knowledge creates little utility for education that prepares a person for careers or life.

Zombie

Posted

Zombie, you do know he's criticizing a british model syatem with all that stuff :P

 

Unlikely I think - since there is no "British model" :P

 

If Bush and Blair had bothered to understand history then maybe we wouldn't have got ourselves in such a mess in Afghanistan. And Latin isn't the only language taught in schools :lol:

 

The most important outcome from a good education is developing the ability to think, to reason and to be creative / inventive. Those are the skills that drove the Industrial Revolution, those are the skills that continue to drive progress, and those are the skills that distinguish us from the 21st century machines.

W_L

Posted

There are many areas of the British system that still remains even after Devolution and the beginnings of drifts in the UK.

 

American schools usually operate in a three tier system of primary, middle, and secondary education. The Current model in England, Wales, and Scotland education is Primary up to 11 year old and Secondary up to 18 (legally until 16 in Wales) without the third tier split in the middle.

 

After 1997 Devolution, Scotland, England, and Wales have different focuses on education curriculum, but structurally with exceptions like the new Foundation phase in Wales (Which I really do commend them starting by the way) your educations do seem to follow similar tracks. Scotland began their changes last academic year 2012-2013, but I haven't heard much reported from the BBC on it for a while.

 

Just saying you guys are still really close as a system, despite the administrative split. I am principally referring to the humanities studies that are still part of your core National Curriculum.

 

Anyway, I think an education system needs to serve the population and the student's interest. Also, despite what education proponents might say, I do not believe that "standard" education itself is the path to better life or social mobility. A person can make extremely good money being a mechanic or a plumber (Ask the guy who charges me 500.00 to screw back a leaky pipe :P ).

 

Trades and crafts are still lucrative professions and comparable to professional training in other fields like psychology, forensics, engineering, architecture, and finance/accounting despite how our jobs are glorified  Only at the high ends of our professions, which are now occupied by Baby Boomers, who will not release those positions, do you really see Professional training rising ahead of technical fields.

 

Seriously, as long as my boss does not quit and there is limited or no salary increase, I think trade jobs are making close to my own salary if not more with volume.

Zombie

Posted

No this is quite wrong. There is no "British system" of education as you describe it.  Never has been. Scotland has always retained a separate and distinct education system both before and after the Acts of Union - the Acts guaranteed Scotland would retain its separate and distinct system. And it has nothing to do with devolution. And the tiering - primary / middle / secondary, or primary / secondary - is not significant.

Likewise it's wrong to say there is a "British system" of education in the core curriculum you mentioned. The National Curriculum only applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland - Scotland has always had its own separate and quite distinct curriculum. In England, some schools must follow the National Curriculum [those controlled by Local Government Education Authorities] but many others can ignore it and set their own curriculum ["Academies", "free schools" and public schools are free to set their own curriculum]. The position is quite different in Wales and Northern Ireland.

So, yeah, however you cut the cake the 4 countries that make up Britain are not "still really close as a system" because there ain't no "British system" :P

But I do agree with you that "an education system needs to serve the population and the student's interest". Unlike you, however, I believe that the education system is key to "social mobility" because, unlike you, I don't define social mobility in terms of earnings. For me it's more than money - it's the ability to move into any area of the economy, not just trades. Don't get me wrong, trades are very important - there are 3 generations of plumbers in my family :P - but trades do not generate national wealth. For that you need a quality education system. Which, sadly - and with some exceptions - Britain does not have.

W_L

Posted

"You need a quality education system. Which, sadly with some exceptions, Britain does not have" :(

 

We can agree to that general point; though I still see more similarities than differences in your curriculums :P

 

Zombie, what is your definition of social mobility? It is easy to see the difference beteeen a coal miner versus an executive of Alcoa. However, even if you worked in plumbing, i'd respect you as a professional. Without trade workers maintaining or building our infrastructure, there would be no economy. I see our economies as filled with far too much service rather than trade skills.

Zombie

Posted

Trades are necessary but they are not sufficient. Successful economies require much more. And quite frankly "respect" is irrelevant to a blog on educational failings.

Social mobility is when the education system enables kids to achieve their full potential - which for some will be trades, but for others will be much more economically productive occupations - by identifying and nurturing their inherent talents and enabling them to move into areas of a country's economic activity for which they are best suited. If they want to - if they don't then at least they had the choice which is denied so many because the system never identifies and nurtures those talents and therefore fails not just the individual but also the wider society and the nation's economy. The reality of how education actually works may be - and is - quite different but that's no reason give up on the goal.

There is no "British system" or "British model" of education as the facts I've already given show. Of course there'll be curriculum similarities just as there are diet similarities wherever you look - we all need protein and carbohydrate :lol:

And I don't know why you're banging on about education in Britain - fascinating as that may be :P Avocatus diaboli is in Canada so I assume he was referencing fundamental flaws in Canada.
 

W_L

Posted

Well you reference the failures of the US system in youe first post which I agree with by the way and also consider to be one of the worst in the world, so thought it'd be fun to look at the UK :P Cultural relativity is fascinating.

 

However, what we are discussing is true of Canada as it is the US and UK. Educational potential is not reached. However, where we differ is the concept that AD raised originally, Utility in education. I see education's future as far more focused rather than splintered as AD also noted in his blog.

 

You seem to be pointing to the need for more humanities "rounding" in education.

 

One of the key issues in modern education is how rounded it is rather than creating focus. Don't get me wrong, I agree in rounded education in primary education though, not entirety of education. How useful is calculus to a tradesman or doctor? Does a mechanic or chemical engineer need to know the capital of Poland is warsaw?

 

Practical aspects would be better than a splatter of facts.

Zombie

Posted

Well you reference the failures of the US system in youe first post which I agree with by the way and also consider to be one of the worst in the world, so thought it'd be fun to look at the UK :P Cultural relativity is fascinating.

 

No I didn't. All I said was "Subjects I'd add as important - maybe missing in the US? - are history, languages and "citizenship"" I don't know if they are missing in the US hence the question - to which you've not responded. And I only referred to the US because I - wrongly - believed AD was in the US instead of Canada - my apologies to AD :*)

 

I avoid labels like "humanities" because they are used pejoratively. No rational person would object to the teaching of language. Likewise history. Likewise geography. The issue, surely, is not the relevance of the subjects but what's in the syllabus and how they're taught - so maybe they don't need to know the capital of Poland but they need have a basic understanding of the planet they live on. "Citizenship" seems to me necessary to fill the knowledge gap so many kids have about the essentials of how to live in a modern society - just look at the shockingly low voting numbers of under 20s.

 

I agree about calculus. I was taught how to do it. I was never taught what it was for. What the fuck was the point of that?? :P And I still don't know. So, yeah, ditch calculus except for those who want to continue maths to a higher level. But, numeracy is an essential skill. Everyone should be taught the maths they will need for the rest of their lives as a basic life skill.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...