According to Ken Robinson, the education system is trying to prepare us for the future using past (and hence, outdated) techniques. Essentially, they are trying to prepare us for the future by using what worked in the past.
The side effect of this is the alienation of millions of children who don’t understand the point in going to school. This is because, previously, children were told that they would do well in school, go to college, get a degree, and get a job. This doesn’t apply now. While having a degree is still a point in your favour, it’s not a guarantee. Furthermore, the path to this glorious degree forces kids to give up a large part of what they believe is important about them.
The problem can be traced back to the origin of most education systems use: the fact that it was designed for and created by a different era. When the system was created, the foundation it was built upon was the assumption that street urchins were born incapable of reading and writing, thereby wasting the resources of schools.
This was due to the fact that the education system was built around the “intellectual model of the mind” meaning that “true” intelligence was indicated by a specific breed of deductive reasoning and a thorough knowledge of classic literature. This is now known as “academic ability”.
This (probably intentionally) resulted in the separation of society into the “smart” and the “non-smart”, resulting in people who are actually quite capable believing they’re not as they are viewed from this critical lens.
The two founding frameworks of this, economic and intellectual, have the combined effect of chaos. For most, some have benefitted from it of course. But there are negative consequences.
A symptom is the amount of medication for ADHD being given to children, who happen to live in the most stimulating period so far. Their attention is demanded not only by school, but also by television, advertisements, and their devices yet they are penalised when they are distracted (despite the fact that that’s the intention of these forms of media) from stuff they consider quite boring.
There’s also another victim: the arts. That isn’t to say that the joy in learning science or maths hasn’t been diminished by the unrelenting focus on test performance, but it’s safe to say the arts have suffered the most. The aesthetic experience, when you are truly present in the moment and enthralled in the story being presented, of the arts goes directly against the ADHD medication which is intended to reduce the stimulus you feel and which “helps” students in school. In essence, students are able to get through the education using mental anaesthetic.
This conveniently loops back round to the industrialised nature of the education system. After all, schools are factories: ringing bells, separate facilities, specialisation of workers (different teachers for different subjects), grouping of children into “batches”.
The grouping makes no sense: the most important part of a student isn’t the date of manufacture, or the age they are. On the contrary, some children are vastly better than others who are the same age as them in different subjects, or even times of the day.
The reform of the education system cannot be based upon the mentality of a factory manager in 1810. That is to say: the education system is based upon conformity (shown by the number of standardised tests). We must go in the other direction, less conformity, not more; less medication, not more; fewer assumptions, not more.
(PS, I think this ties in quite well with my previous post)
Yes, your points are valid. Conforming to the system is the basis of the whole education. It’s a big question…Do we need a system of not? Grouping based on the abilities rather than age group has been talked about and there are people breaking it in certain institutions.
A system is required to ensure all children can be educated, however a “system” in the traditional sense of a standardised programme should not exist due to the divergent interests and skills of children. After all, how can a standardised programme allow for genuine individuality?
While the points you mentioned are correct, systems are good for average people. Until certain age, kids wouldn’t have maturity to decide or not clear on what they want. That could probably be the reason, current systems try to give basic framework which may not suit too well for gifted or exceptionally talented or special needs kids.
The notion that children don’t know what they want stems from the fact that they have not been allowed to explore different areas and figure out which ones they enjoy. This is one of the ways the current system is outdated and suppressing. Another is the fact that it imposes an imaginary distinction between students by labelling some as “smart” and others as “not smart” while ignoring the idea that even though a child may not be academically gifted, they are likely gifted in other areas. This renders the label of “gifted” and “exceptionally talented” into an arbitrary one within the context of the education system as it doesn’t fully take the abilities of a child into account.
Brilliant! Completely back you on that point.