Education in our Schools?

I read a book by Daniel Quinn titled "My Ishmael" in which he states that almost everything you need to know in order to function in our society (adding, basic reading skills, etc.) are already learned by 3rd grade. So what does a student get between 4th and 12th grade? Ask any student there, or recent grad and they will tell you "nothing." Quinn goes on to say that the real purpose of 4-12th grades are to act as a regulator, to gradually regulate the flow of young people into the job marketplace. I tend to agree with him.

It could be a lot more. It could be a place students want to go, to learn things. Really, almost everyone wants to learn, because it's fun. Personally, I have books in literally every room in the house, a dictionary on a stand permanently open, and use the Internet primarily for research. So, why do the schools have to take all the fun out of learning and replace it with bootcamp discipline? Students want to learn things they are interested in, not things some "ivory tower" education guru has decided they should learn. How many new, innovative education programs have come and gone, not only with no improvement in education quality, but in degradation of quality?

These curriculums that come down from on high do serve one useful function. They allow incompetent and uncaring teachers to remain in the classrooms. How many times have you heard "all the good teachers are no longer teaching"? Because of the money? No. You and I know better. Obviously there are many dedicated teachers in there, but mostly schools have become the refuge of mediocre teachers.

If we had teachers in there that actually care, and had freedom to do their job, perhaps students might become excited about learning. Think back to your favorite teachers. They were the enthusiastic ones, the ones that passed it to you. Teaching isn't a matter of "knowing stuff" and making students learn it, it's stimulating people to think for themselves. Not learning "stuff", but learning how to think.

We expect students to all learn at the same pace. 20-30 kids in the classroom, and all supposed to learn the same material at the same time! Ludicrous! Any student with half a brain is going to be bored silly, any student with any disability whatsoever is going to be progressively left further and further behind (don't worry, though, we'll get him through anyway).

Of course, we have the solutions to these problems. We'll throw more money at the schools. We'll build bigger and better facilities (prisons, if you look at them), give teachers more money (not that they don't deserve it), and implement even more educational "programs", none of which work. Why not? Because the foundation premise is wrong! We are not teaching young people to think, we are marking their time until they graduate, where they can enter the job market and start learning what they really need to know, or go on to higher education to learn specific job skills.

If we were a smarter society, we would set up schools with really good computers, shop tools, Art supplies, musical equipment, whatever that would stimulate study in various areas. If a student found a line of interest, the student could pursue that line, and applied mathematics might be more fun (for example). A student who plans on working the family farm has no need of such things, unless he's interested, but there's plenty of opportunity to learn how tools work and what you can do with them, how to rebuild engines, genetic engineering, bookkeeping, etc. There are no limits. But why does someone who's going to be a farmer need to know French (nothing wrong with French, except for this person)?

Since we're talking about throwing money at the schools, let's talk about the bureaucracy. In the Moose Lake area, we have a District Superintendent. Barnum has one. Willow River has one. Each one gets somewhere between $70-95,000/year. Seems a little wasteful to me. I don't see how we can possibly justify this. Minneapolis has a lot more schools in their system, way more students, and only one superintendent. Hmmm! I can't believe it's a job that couldn't handle 3 small schools. We don't want to take away the "identity" of the rural school, just timeshare the administrative duties. Spread it around.

The problem with this, of course, is that all bureaucracies are designed to self-perpetuate themselves, and grow. But we don't need more administration. We need less. We need to let teachers (good ones) do their job. Dump most (if not all) of these "programs", and teach students the things they want and need to know to function and to think creatively. IT IS NOT HAPPENING NOW!