Imagine three high-school students in a public (AKA government) school. One of these children aspires to become a novelist, one a farmer, and one a neurosurgeon. How is the American educational system benefiting each of these three vastly different people? How will their education help or hinder their success? Is a homogenized education right in this situation?
Government schools offer streamlined schooling. Students are imposed upon with a certain curriculum with little ability to customize. General subjects such as math, English/literature, foreign language, history, and science are taught. There is some branching with more advanced forms of math, perhaps chemistry, biology, or economics and the likes. Of course there will be the usual array of sports and extra curricular activities. Yet, what if this form of cookie-cutter schooling wasn't good for every student? What if, since proficiency in any of these fields is ignored in favor of rote memorization needed for testing, it is actually dragging down students? What if a focused, customizable education was available?
“But what about a well rounded education?”
The matter is that the conception most Americans accept as education is a serious misinterpretation of the term 'well rounded'. It would seem that a useful education would focus on subjects applicable to life in society. Such as the ability to administer basic paramedic skills should the need arise, perhaps some automotive repair, or managing finances instead of quadratic equations. Perhaps even some logic could be thrown in there. Furthermore, students should be allowed to focus on subjects that benefit their future careers. Chances are that if this more focused ideal were implemented, more students would achieve higher in their chosen fields instead of settling for mediocre and be more able in their life outside work. Does that not equate a suitable education? The question that needs to be asked is whether what is accepted as a 'well rounded' education that the greater percentile of students does not achieve proficiency in is worth the sacrifice of preparing students for future careers.
So how does a typical high-school education benefit the writer? Writing, specifically writing novels, does not require a college degree. Creative writing courses, if desired, are available outside of colleges. The aspiring novelist needs to learn to write. They need to be able to craft stories, understand their market, and develop the skills and relationships necessary to success. They need time to do this. That is roadblock number one with a public education. This child will spend hours, days even, studying and working through curriculum that does not benefit their aspirations. Meanwhile they could be honing the skills they actually need. Second, this child could be focusing their education on the particular knowledge they need. The high-schooler (if their education has been worth anything at all) should already be proficient in the math necessary to manage finances and navigate life. A writer doesn't need advanced algebra, geometry, or calculus. They should have the fundamental knowledge they need. If their career takes them down the path where they need this knowledge, then they can do the research essential for it.
Now the farmer. What is most useful for them to know? Perhaps this child could spend more time at home learning the nuances of farming. It could be important to them to understand the science of achieving good soil, of how their animals work so that they are better prepared to care for them and make their careers a success. Yet, are either of these things going to be taught to them in school at a useful and productive level? Are other vitally important things?
Finally, we have the aspiring neurosurgeon. Unlike the previous students, this person will be required to attend college. Thus, learning many of the subjects offered in high-school are required for the next stage of their schooling. In a perfect world, the college education is also reformed to make far more sense. High-school is the focus here, so it shall leave that subject for another day. It can be argued that still more specialization could/should be allowed for this student so that when the time comes for entrance into their college education, they are better prepared with skills necessary for their education.
A career isn't everything. Of course education should prepare a person for their lives amongst society, and should therefore not ignore common knowledge. But perhaps if more emphasis was put on proficiency instead of rote memorization to enhance test scores, this knowledge would be sufficient by the time a student reached high-school. Education is not something to be taken lightly, be done lazily, or ignored. But, a more flexible and specialized education is needed. Much of the knowledge gained in high-school is forgotten once tests are graded. We must also keep in mind the students who are unsure of their future vocations, of course. Alternative forms of education such as apprenticeships and homeschooling should not be such a social taboo.
Photo credit: pexels.com