What's Wrong With Public Education?

There was another discussion, entitled Cheater, Cheater, that was mainly in regards to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Within it, a couple others and myself got into a fairly heated debate regarding high school curriculums. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to go into detail about the idea that I proposed and group it all together in what will hopefully be a more neutral area in more neutral tones.

Learning Styles/Multiple Intelligences

There are a number of different styles of learning that different people learn better through. This is even evident in colleges, where people drop out of classes because they are doing terrible and end up excelling the next time they take the same class because they got a different professor that teaches the material differently. Such styles are kinesthetic (hands-on), auditory (lecture-style), and visual (reading).

One idea that I had was to have three variations of each class, based on the different styles of learning (at least for most classes, since there are some that can't be split like this). So, for each class, you could have one environment that focused more on hands-on activities, one that was mostly lecture, and one that was mostly reading. That's not to say that each class would exclude the other types, they would just focus on the style of learning that each group learns best with.

Under the theory of multiple intelligences, you actually can't teach one way to the exclusion of the others, because even though someone learns the best one way, they will actually retain more if the information is presented in more than one way.

This leads us to an alternative to completely splitting the classes, especially since that would not be practical in all school districts, at least not without a significant increase in funding. The alternative would be to open up the classroom environment to allow and encourage teachers to teach according to the different learning styles. Some teachers already do this, particularly the ones that teach critical thinking classes and teach about the MI theory, but the idea here would be to have every teacher incorporate all three learning styles into the topic.

The biggest issue with this, though, is it can be time-consuming (especially hands-on learning), which is why, I think, it's not widely adopted. I think, though, it might be able to be a combination of the two aforementioned methods. You could combine the visual and auditory learning classes into one curriculum, since they learn similarly, and have the kinesthetic style have a different curriculum. The auditory and visual classes would be pretty much the way classes are now, while the kinesthetic classes might be something more along the lines of the way a lot of colleges schedule--you have 3 or 4 hour blocks of one class, one or two days a week. So, instead of 45 minutes of class that's mostly lecture, you'd have an hour and a half of class that's hands-on projects.

This method would have to be tested somewhere and modified some from what I have here to be able to accommodate both the students' and the schools' needs (the learning style vs. time constraints), but I think it could be doable, especially since a similar method is being used for the Vocational-Technical track when it's offered.

Teaching Theory vs. Teaching Practicality

This topic is the main reason for this post, and the topic of major debate in the Cheater, Cheater post. One or two people insisted that higher level math was absolutely necessary for the real world, while a couple people felt that higher level math, though valuable to those going into math-related fields, should be replaced by a practical math course in the mandatory curriculum, and higher level maths be moved to the electives list. I suggested the practical math course, and a couple others agreed with me. Here, I'll explain the idea that started the debate in general, as well as outlining some of the arguments to it an explain the counterarguments.

As it stands now, most schools require three math courses. My district, for example, required Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. The discussion had been on the topic of Algebra II, so the scope will remain that way, since an Algebra I to Algebra II track seems to be consistent throughout most of the country.

The Source of My Point of View

Before I begin, let me explain where I'm coming from with my ideas and my way of thinking that a lot of the math we learn in high school is generally lost in what we call the "real world."

I'm currently a college senior at DeVry University, studying Computer Information Systems (CIS), a program that focuses mainly on computers in the business world. This includes tracks in application programming and web application programming (using languages such as COBOL, C++, C#, JAVA, and ASP.NET), as well as computer forensics, network administration, and information security (though the major as a whole touches into most of these topics). I've chosen the web development track and have taken a number of programming classes (programming is considered a math, by the way, for those that don't know).

When I first started, I was in Computer Engineering Technology (CET), which focuses on hardware and software and for a while follows a similar curriculum to the Electronics Engineering Technology (EET), which starts out with digital circuits and a lot of circuit theory. They also had a lot of math. I started in a course called College Algebra and Trigonometry. Now, keep in mind, this is supposed to be a rather advanced college level course. I got in it my first semester because I had a high ACT score and came straight from high school. The material? The entirety of what I learned in that class was what I learned in Algebra I and Algebra II when I was in 9th and 10th grade, including the Trig.

I also now work as a tutor, specializing in math. Part of my job is also to act as a Faculty Assistant (FA) for lab environment classes. This is primarily the low-level math classes. These math classes go over what people learned in pre-Algebra (8th grade math), Algebra I, and Algebra II (sub-100 and low-100 courses). Most of the students in the classes that I FA are people who have been out of school for 10 or 15 years, have a semi-decent career (some are in higher ranking positions but need the degree to move up, some are business owners, etc) and looking for a change or a degree to back up their experience. They're not low-level blue-collar workers that haven't needed more than motor skills to do their jobs, basically.

The Creation of a Practical Math Course and the Elimination of Algebra II as a Mandatory Course

Alright, so on to my idea. The people advocating Algebra II had a good point that I'd like to note: math is needed for various "survival" skills in the real world. Interpreting stock market values and graphs, balancing checkbooks, and calculating interest amounts for a mortgage are just some of the skills that are highly valuable in life and are derived from the concepts learned in Algebra.

Here's a question for you, though, when was the last time you actually used the quadratic equation or factored a trinomial fraction? While some specialized fields may require these abilities to function, the vast majority of them don't require more than knowledge of the order of operations and knowing how to use formulas.

Here's my proposal, then:

The upper levels of Algebra II start getting into theories that simply aren't used in most circumstances, but some of the lower level things are. So, pull those lower level things, such as graphing and whatnot, into Algebra I. This will make Algebra I more challenging, since it has to go farther, and allow Algebra II to get more challenging, since it can go farther. Perhaps you can even turn Algebra II into Algebra II and Trig Basics, combining some of the basics for Trig in with Algebra II, allowing for a smoother transition into a full-blown Trig course should the students choose to do so. Algebra II gets moved to the electives list.

You then create a Practical Math course that would take Algebra II's place on the mandatory list. Practical Math would be nothing but real-world application of the math concepts students learned in Algebra I and the other mandatory math classes.

A long term project could include a checkbook balancing and budgeting activity. It would start by everyone choosing from a hat an occupation and associated yearly salary. They would then calculate their weekly budget from their yearly salary (the challenge level can be increased or decreased simply by going with gross or net income, so they may have to figure out how much gets taken in taxes, as well). It could also be made more challenging by including spouses and kids, which could also be drawn from a hat. From then on, they would draw from a hat each day daily events (or weekly, even). This would include things like extra money from stocks or gift money, or unforeseen expenses, such as emergency room visits, accidents, and so on. The students would have to calculate recurring expenses, such as bills and paychecks, as well as other expenses, such as grocery shopping (this could come from a grid based on household size). The teacher would act as the bank and keep track of deposits and withdrawals, so the students can be graded based on how long they keep their checkbook accurate. The "bank" could also issue monthly statements that show how activity, just like a real bank. The idea here would be to mimic the real world of budgeting and checkbook balancing before the students get thrown into it after graduation.

So, here you would provide students with practical, real-world application of the math they learned earlier in middle school and high school. Let's face it, many people know how to solve a problem when presented it one way, but when asked a different situation that apply the same principles, they're clueless. This shows them the application behind the theory, and prepares them for the "real world," regardless of the path they choose to take. Making Algebra II an elective still keeps it in the curriculum and available to those that choose to pursue it.

The Vocational-Technical Track

Vo-Tech, at least in my high school, had a stigma of being for the "dumb kids," because they often weren't able to take the Academic (there were Applied, which was a "lower level" course, then Academic, which was higher level in comparison, but below AP, which we didn't have in one of the schools I went to, and was limited in the other) level courses due to schedule conflicts if they took Vo-Tech.

Vo-Tech, though, can actually be just as challenging as the Academic courses. The difference between them is that Academic teaches theory for college-bound students and Vo-Tech teaches theory and application for work-bound students.

For those that don't know, Vocational-Technical (Vo-Tech), is a track that most high schoolers can choose to take for their 10th, 11th, and 12th grade years. They generally have their own building, where they go for half of the day and get 3 or 4 credits per year for. The other half of the day is spent doing required courses at the home school. Vo-Tech courses often include small engine repair, auto body, computers/electronics/information technology, drafting, cooking (like catering level), and so on. The program also oftentimes gives the students a chance at getting certifications in their chosen track, which can do wonders for getting a job after high school.

I'm including Vo-Tech in here because I find it to be a very good example of the two topics that I've already covered--different styles of learning and teaching practicality. I took Vo-Tech for only my Senior year of high school, since there wasn't anything else I wanted to take and would have had half a day of study hall (broken up, unfortunately, because I would have taken Academic Physics in the morning and had all my other classes in the afternoon, so it wasn't even like I could just go in for half a day even if that was an option for me). It was quite a learning experience for me, not only because it destroyed the earlier assumptions of it being for "dumb kids," but also because I learned things that I otherwise wouldn't have ever seen until college.

As far as the theory goes, these kids were actually getting college/trade school-level educations, and more importantly, formal, hands-on experience that they could take to employers and say "this is what I did for three years." I took the Electronics course when I went there, and learned, in-depth, things like Ohm's law (along with the 20 different ways to twist the formulas to be able to find every other part with as little as one known unit), how the different circuit diagrams translate to real wiring and what each part represents and how they interact with each other. I also learned how to take those circuit diagrams and actually build small projects, including a strobe light (which also made one hell of a shock circuit) and a little device that would make a clicking sound at different frequencies that could be controlled by a knob. My favorite, though, had to be programming the robot (which was basically a moving laptop stand) to run around the rooms for the open house. These were things I never would have even seen in the Academic track at my home school! And we called these kids dumb! Ha!

Giving Students Options While Still Providing a Standardized Curriculum

One of the other points of debate in the discussion was the idea of offering more choices in what classes students take. I think part of the debate stemmed from not everyone being on the same page with it. The nay-sayers seemed to take it as "let the students choose the classes they want to take and not have any sort of framework for them." This is actually a misunderstanding of the point the pro-sayers were trying to get across.

Believe it or not, most students have at least a general idea of what they want to do after high school. They may not know their exact major if they're going to college, but they can generally tell you if they're going to go to college, or if they're going to go into the military, or if they're going to go straight into the workforce. Even this general decision can influence what they do with the options they are given in high school. The ones that are really looking to go to college will more than likely take classes that they know will help them get into college above and beyond even what's required of them, regardless of how the requirement structure is set up. The ones that are going straight into the workforce probably want the classes that are more hands on and may go for the Vo-Tech track anyway. The ones going into the military may be more likely to simply go for the classes they enjoy the most (or at least not want to strangle someone half way through).

Giving students a choice is a good thing, I think, even if it's only limited to Juniors and Seniors (which was an idea offered by someone). You start out with the main framework--students have to take at least three math, four science, four English, and four Social Studies credits. You then determine which individual courses for each are mandatory, which would be the ones taken in 9th and 10th grades. These courses would include Algebra I and Practical Math for the Math courses, Chemistry and Biology (or a combined Chemistry and Biology class and Physics) for Science, composition and literature for English, and Economics/Government and World History for Social Studies (these are derived from my own district's high school curriculum). From there, you determine a list of three or four options for each of the remaining credits. Algebra II, Geometry, Trig, Calculus, etc. for Math. Technical Writing, Poetry (writing and interpreting, not an easy A), English Literature, American Literature, Journalism, etc. for English. Ancient History, Comparative Religions, World Government, Military History, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, etc. for Social Studies. Earth Science, Astronomy, Physics/Advanced Physics, Anatomy, etc. for Science.

This setup allows students to get the required credits without pigeonholing them into one particular topic in each subject. I think we would see this used more in the Social Studies and English courses, where there are many more options that don't require other classes to build on them. Science would be the next one for the most variety, because you do have some branches that don't necessarily require prerequisites, but it would do the students good if they took them in certain orders. Math would actually stay somewhat untouched, since you can't really do Trig or Calculus unless you have at least working familiarity with the concepts found in Algebra II and Geometry.

So, here you have the first two years laying groundwork for the other classes, then you give the students the options to go their own paths. This way, you keep the interest of students by allowing them to select the classes they think they would enjoy the most, while still requiring a certain amount of each general subject.

A Note on Young People in General

This is a side note, but I think it's relevant to at least the last topic. It seems to me that society doesn't like to give young people any sort of decision beyond their wardrobe (and even that is sometimes limited) until they turn 18 and/or graduate high school. They are then thrown out into the "real world" and left to fend more or less for themselves because they've reached the magic age that suddenly turns them from drooling, peer-following, mindless zombies, to free-thinking, decision-making "adults."

How can anyone not see something wrong with this? We talk all the time about how teenagers "don't have the mental ability" to make certain decisions or see beyond their decisions, yet we don't let them do so, even guided. We make the decisions for them until they turn 18, then expect them to suddenly know how to make their own decisions. You then get all these stats about how people between the ages of 18 and 25 (or whatever upper bound) are more likely to make bad decisions. Well, why is that? Could it be because they're finally free to make their own decisions, but since everyone made their decisions for them, they still don't know how to make their own decisions or see beyond the decisions they've made, that they're forced into a trial-and-error situation until that upper bounds age where they've learned through the first few years on their own these skills that they should have been taught all along?

Just something to think about there. I think I will post my views on raising kids. That might be a while, though. I have a lot to say about that.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •