Archive for January, 2011

Question : If you redesigned high school curriculum, what kinds of classes would you create?
For example, kids graduating high school these days have no training in how their credit rating works, how to get a mortgage, how to invest. They don’t know how to advance their careers, how to hold a marriage together, how to raise children.

Thinking about the recent cover story in Time magazine, they don’t know how to assess risk in the modern world. Judging by the popularity of some conspiracy theories, they haven’t learned to think carefully about events in the news.

Our educational curriculum was designed in the 19th century and hasn’t changed much since. Back then, young adults didn’t have as many choices, they had more support from family and community, and were less likely, for example, to move a few thousand miles from where they grew up.

What kinds of classes would you suggest to bring our education system into the 21st century?
Sorry, the main question should have read “If you redesigned *the* high school curriculum…” Yes, I did take English classes in high school, but I didn’t do that well at proof-reading!
ProfessorMaddie – I agree. Back in the 19th century, no one needed to tell us to exercise more and avoid junk food. And it seems like Physical Education could be redesigned to have less emphasis on sports and more on nutrition.
namowal – I agree with the intent of your suggestion, but the implementation details may need more work.

In the past, some of this was accomplished through classes in debate an philosophy. Perhaps these classes could be reworked to accomplish your suggestion.
linlyons – I agree that, in order to add new classes, some existing class must be shortened.

We could re-tune existing classes to make them shorter while retaining the core.

For example, I love math and have a degree in it, but I recognize that most people don’t get much out of their classes.

In fact, the main thing they should get out of math is the ability to apply math to every day situations. I doubt many people have used trigonometry recently.

The math-related ability I find most lacking today is the capacity to quantify things in everyday life, and then use those numbers in some meaningful way.

In short, I think math education today fails to transmit its most useful feature, while emphasizing specialized aspects.

To sum up, perhaps we could shorten our math curriculum so that most people emphasize applied math. We could spend the time thus freed on new classes, while people, with an interest and talent for math, like me, could to take more classes.
magpiesmn – I totally agree that choice is key to motivating students. Particularly since kids of that age have a natural rebelliousness that can backfire on them in school.

However, I also think educators have a duty to broaden students’ outlooks and expose them to things they might not otherwise have considered.
robertmindriver – When the American education system was designed, it was totally focused on practicality. It was also designed for different times, so yes, I think there should be more emphasis on the real world as it exists today.

After re-reading my original question, I’m not sure why you think I advocate teaching morality, but we could consider adding it. Why? Because life today has more complicated moral choices, and some kids don’t get the moral education they once received in church.

As far as the two-track system you seem to be endorsing, there is some merit it that. But I also would like to see new classes, for example some practical economic education. As a young adult, I personally could have benefited greatly from a class in practical finance.

And with regard to more vocational training, we also need to keep in mind the dwindling need for blue-collar workers on today’s global economy.
“Mr. Wise” – it has become an unthinking mantra today that kids receive a poor education in math and science.

And yet we rarely think about what parts of a math and science education are genuinely useful for most people. In other words, studying math and science is not an intrinsic good, it must serve some broader purpose.

IMHO, the current math and science program alienates many while failing to convey the parts which could truly help people cope in a modern world.

I’m surprised at your assumption that a system designed to server a dramatically different society should not be re-evaluated.

I think you should ask yourself 1) what purpose should an education accomplish, 2) how well is our system achieving those goals, and if it is failing any goals, 3) what changes could we make to improve it.

Simply defending the status quo, when so much has changed, strikes me as an excuse not to think critically about where our society is headed.
Magpiesmn – I understand your concern over the government being responsible for broadening student’s horizons. Perhaps that is one reason why it might have been a mistake switch from local control over schools to our current model, wherein the federal government is responsible for probably too much.

Yet I can’t help that feel that while perhaps you do a good job at this, on average most of us fail dismally. In fact, I’d bet that the average parent wants to make a little clone of themselves.

And most of us don’t have the degree of specialization necessary to expose children to diverse topics such as dramatic arts, visual arts and the performing arts, or to teach them about foreign cultures or different ways of thinking. This is what broadening horizons is about, not, as you may fear, political indoctrination.
redesign classes

Best answer:

Answer by professormaddie
I would like to see more serious nutrition and exercise courses. As a nation, we keep getting fat.