Whither Education?

Working for nearly two and a half years back in a public high school has been a unique experience for me. I'm not a teacher and I'm not a student, but rather a security guard, which means I'm at a loose, nebulously defined position in the social fabric of the high school- nark, but cool, bring to the job what I'd like to think is a certain amount of vim and panache.

But it's also given me the rare vantage point of being able to view the public education system a bit more objectively than from the point of view of teachers (underpaid, underappreciated and unionized) or students (bitter, cynical and apathetic). And I think I've come to the conclusion that 'No Child Left Behind' was a spectacular failure, not because it was generally useless- because it was, but due it's stunning lack of imagination behind the idea of educational reform.

It's not the standards that need to be changed- it's the model itself. We've got an industrial-factory model for our high schools that takes students in one end and spits them out the other, supposedly prepared for the challenges of college or life ahead- the 180 day school year calendar is a leftover remnant of the agrarian calendar- which may still be very applicable to rural districts, but no so much in towns like Mankato or Iowa City. So, what to do?

Tentatively, I'd do this:

Phase One: 7th-10th Grade- This is where we should attempt to achieve the mythical status of 'a well-rounded education.' Get all the gen-ed type classes out of the way, with the emphasis of building a knowledge base for further education. 10th Grade should culminate with a comprehensive (including a written part) series of tests to see if you advance into the final two years of high school.

Phase Two: 11th-12th Grade- This is solid, hardcore college prep- and it should be about figuring out what students want to go and where they're going to go. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I run in too who spent whole semesters in college (including me) futzing around trying to figure out what to do. I regret not contemplating that more in high school- and I'm trying to make up for it now, but the emphasis should be designing curriculum to meet the post-high school educational needs of any given student. If you're going to end up at a tech college, why do you need to know stuffy English literature? If you're going to a four year college for a liberal arts degree, then why do you need advanced math? You see where I'm going with this? There should be heavy emphasis on college prep and enough creativity and flex in curriculum to allow for the fact that students may not all be fitting into the mould that the industrial-factory model seems to want to put them in.

Flexibility. Diversity. Creativity.

That's what's called for, I think- but, given the almighty powers of teacher's unions, I doubt it will- but it's nice to see a little bit of diversity here in Minnesota- Farmington might be moving to a trimester system (which is what I'm a product of) and Minneapolis is getting 3 new charter schools.

That said: not sure that pouring more money into the system is going to help. They need it, fo'sure- but we need to rebuild the system itself, instead of just pouring money into it.