Week 4 Review
This is probably my favorite question for review. This is something I would love to talk about in-depth if given the opportunity and I have written at length about it but I will try to keep this as brief as possible for reading purposes.
When it comes to educational theory or system structure, I am very interested in a concept introduced by Plato in The Republic. When reading Plato’s Republic, a central idea is always present when discussing the education of the citizens of the Republic. That idea is specialization.
We have many different systems in places such as charter schools, public schools, private schools, homeschooling, and other experimental types of schools such as Sudbury schools. Americans are preoccupied with the idea that more choice allows for the creation of effective schools. I would argue the contrary. Having multiple diverse types of schools using a variety of systems only works to the detriment of both students and society. It creates individuals who have not been equally educated. To have the most effective education system, a single universal system with the idea of specialization at its core would prove most beneficial for both the individual and society.
First, in early childhood, all children should be taught equally. A universal curriculum that covers the basics of what they’ll need in the future. Race, gender, or socioeconomic status should not limit one's access to this quality of education. Basic math, writing, science, arts, etc. They must be exposed to as many rudimentary forms of future more complex tasks as possible. Their inclinations and strengths will be recorded in their associated category. This is an attempt to see how early we can identify a natural aptitude for tasks. As the child ages through the elementary system, their strengths will have been tallied.
Next is middle childhood. Middle childhood for each student will be based on their elementary recordings. For example, math students will be geared toward more math-oriented classes and activities. They will also only attend class with others who showed an aptitude for math. Some may argue that this is discriminatory. I would contest that collaboration amongst others who excel in your field will lead to greater learning and discoveries. Much like how experts in fields communicate and theorize with each other to come to conclusions, this will teach students that collaboration leads to progress. Also, I would criticize the bell curve approach to classrooms. This limits the excelling students and handicaps the students who do not have an aptitude for certain subjects. The goal is to identify what students excel at and then give them the tools and guidance to develop those skills immensely. These students will still be given courses in writing and reading to assure they develop competence as well as history.
Next is high school. At this stage, students will have begun a mixture of both academic and vocational education. The students will continue to develop their particular strengths through more challenging coursework. I would propose that the first two years consist of mostly academic coursework but include exposure to different fields that their strengths can be applied. During this period students can get an idea of particular occupations they may be interested in. Their interests and success at these will be recorded to be referred to in the later years. Students will also receive education in how their government functions throughout their high school career.
The following years will consist of a stronger focus on application. Using the previous recordings of their interests and strengths, they will get hands-on experience in the occupations they took interest in. Once they receive this experience, their efficiency at accomplishing objectives within them will be recorded.
It is at this point that I would suggest extending what we call high school another two years. These final years will be used to distinguish between what I would call the “maker” and the “thinker.” The maker is the student who understands the systems needed to create something while the thinker is the one who informs the maker and utilizes what the maker creates. This idea very much draws from Plato’s words in book ten: “A flute player, for example, tells a flute maker about the flutes that respond well in actual playing and prescribes what kind of flutes he is to make, while the maker follows his instructions.” (Plato, 272) “Then doesn’t the one who knows give instructions about good and bad flutes, and doesn’t the other rely on him in making them?” (Plato, 272) “Therefore, a maker, through associating with and having to listen to the one who knows, has right opinion about whether something he makes is fine or bad, but the one who knows is the user.” (Plato, 272)
Plato’s words represent a very fundamental takeaway from this education system. That no matter what field you are in, there is this dynamic relationship occurring constantly between the makers and the thinkers of other fields. These relationships give rise to the systems that form the very foundations of our society. The students at this level will actively partake in specialized fields and collaborate with other students in specialized fields that could compliment theirs. The point of this is to put students in real-world scenarios that their future occupation would entail while helping to distinguish between makers and thinkers. Proceeding to university will be only to refine their skills to the highest level possible.
I have done my best to put these ideas in a simple to read format and thus much more nuanced ideas and explanations within them have been cut. But this is the basic premise of, in an ideal world, what I would do to our educations system.
When it comes to educational theory or system structure, I am very interested in a concept introduced by Plato in The Republic. When reading Plato’s Republic, a central idea is always present when discussing the education of the citizens of the Republic. That idea is specialization.
We have many different systems in places such as charter schools, public schools, private schools, homeschooling, and other experimental types of schools such as Sudbury schools. Americans are preoccupied with the idea that more choice allows for the creation of effective schools. I would argue the contrary. Having multiple diverse types of schools using a variety of systems only works to the detriment of both students and society. It creates individuals who have not been equally educated. To have the most effective education system, a single universal system with the idea of specialization at its core would prove most beneficial for both the individual and society.
First, in early childhood, all children should be taught equally. A universal curriculum that covers the basics of what they’ll need in the future. Race, gender, or socioeconomic status should not limit one's access to this quality of education. Basic math, writing, science, arts, etc. They must be exposed to as many rudimentary forms of future more complex tasks as possible. Their inclinations and strengths will be recorded in their associated category. This is an attempt to see how early we can identify a natural aptitude for tasks. As the child ages through the elementary system, their strengths will have been tallied.
Next is middle childhood. Middle childhood for each student will be based on their elementary recordings. For example, math students will be geared toward more math-oriented classes and activities. They will also only attend class with others who showed an aptitude for math. Some may argue that this is discriminatory. I would contest that collaboration amongst others who excel in your field will lead to greater learning and discoveries. Much like how experts in fields communicate and theorize with each other to come to conclusions, this will teach students that collaboration leads to progress. Also, I would criticize the bell curve approach to classrooms. This limits the excelling students and handicaps the students who do not have an aptitude for certain subjects. The goal is to identify what students excel at and then give them the tools and guidance to develop those skills immensely. These students will still be given courses in writing and reading to assure they develop competence as well as history.
Next is high school. At this stage, students will have begun a mixture of both academic and vocational education. The students will continue to develop their particular strengths through more challenging coursework. I would propose that the first two years consist of mostly academic coursework but include exposure to different fields that their strengths can be applied. During this period students can get an idea of particular occupations they may be interested in. Their interests and success at these will be recorded to be referred to in the later years. Students will also receive education in how their government functions throughout their high school career.
The following years will consist of a stronger focus on application. Using the previous recordings of their interests and strengths, they will get hands-on experience in the occupations they took interest in. Once they receive this experience, their efficiency at accomplishing objectives within them will be recorded.
It is at this point that I would suggest extending what we call high school another two years. These final years will be used to distinguish between what I would call the “maker” and the “thinker.” The maker is the student who understands the systems needed to create something while the thinker is the one who informs the maker and utilizes what the maker creates. This idea very much draws from Plato’s words in book ten: “A flute player, for example, tells a flute maker about the flutes that respond well in actual playing and prescribes what kind of flutes he is to make, while the maker follows his instructions.” (Plato, 272) “Then doesn’t the one who knows give instructions about good and bad flutes, and doesn’t the other rely on him in making them?” (Plato, 272) “Therefore, a maker, through associating with and having to listen to the one who knows, has right opinion about whether something he makes is fine or bad, but the one who knows is the user.” (Plato, 272)
Plato’s words represent a very fundamental takeaway from this education system. That no matter what field you are in, there is this dynamic relationship occurring constantly between the makers and the thinkers of other fields. These relationships give rise to the systems that form the very foundations of our society. The students at this level will actively partake in specialized fields and collaborate with other students in specialized fields that could compliment theirs. The point of this is to put students in real-world scenarios that their future occupation would entail while helping to distinguish between makers and thinkers. Proceeding to university will be only to refine their skills to the highest level possible.
I have done my best to put these ideas in a simple to read format and thus much more nuanced ideas and explanations within them have been cut. But this is the basic premise of, in an ideal world, what I would do to our educations system.
Comments
Post a Comment