Suppose

 

One of the more vituperative arguments of our time is over what is called “The Common Core.” It's a well-meaning attempt to ensure equal education of all so that no child is “left behind.” The improvement of the education of our children is a praiseworthy goal. And there is a basic body of information they should all share – whether its immediate use can be identified or not. The classical college education with a core curriculum illustrates the validity of this concept (although it is undeniable that some colleges have wandered from long-standing ideas of what constitutes a classical education and adapted the core to reflect current fads and fashions).

But, as far as the “Common Core” is concerned, the aim of many is also to establish a tool for comparing students and educational institutions, and to evaluate educators. Implicit in the concept are the assumptions that all children are equally able to absorb the education offered, that identical educations are appropriate everywhere, that one set of “experts” can, and should, make all the decisions, and that standardized tests are the best way to guarantee comparable evaluation. In short, all students, whether they have an IQ of 80 or 130, are the same (yes I know that people consider the IQ a poor indicator of ability, but I don't), and there is a single ideal way to determine knowledge. Teachers, moreover, can be evaluated by their adequacy in filling the children with the particular “facts” that make up the government approved warehouse of necessary information and ideas.

But granting the sincerity of its promoters – if not their wisdom – a significant fault of the concept, as seen from a distance by an amateur, is that the children are taught things, and that teachers are rewarded for drilling them in that kind of knowledge. Certainly such education is important, especially as a starting point for younger children, but it seems to me that it's more important for them to discover how to learn and how to think. And it's a shame. Kids have rich imaginations, and simply stuffing their minds with facts rather than encouraging them to learn some of those facts on their own, or to work out solutions to problems they can imagine, that they face, or that society has faced, sells them short.

Suppose, for example, some kids were asked to consider, and write about, what would have happened if Alexander Fleming hadn't discovered penicillin. They'd have to read about him, the times, and the results of his discovery, and then one might comment on the value of antibiotics in saving lives, and how the failure to have penicillin (and similar drugs subsequently) might have affected the outcome of the Second World War, while another will, perhaps, be more interested in the what could have resulted if there were no risk of overuse of antibiotics in cows and chickens. A third might choose to deal with “accidents” and the effect of their absence on science, while a fourth would, perhaps, expound on the fate of St. Mary's Hospital without him. The rote memorization of the simple facts of his discovery might fit well on a multiple-choice test, but it would be advantageous to consider the implications of those facts on their times, rather than memorize the facts themselves. Less structured by the specifics, it would give the student the opportunity to explore what interests him, while learning a little history, or science, or whatever. And the students could conceivably raise issues that hadn't been considered already.

Or suppose that the Supreme Court hadn't used Marbury v. Madison as a vehicle for establishing its dominance over the legislative branch of government (and the executive for that matter). What would be the implications in terms of more recent decisions? How would the current controversy over judicial “over-reach” be affected? How would the Judiciary's weakness, as anticipated by the Founders, change – if at all – the decisions about which cases should be judged and what the judgments should be?

What if President Washington hadn't imposed a two-term limit on himself or if Franklin Roosevelt had? How would these events have changed our history? There are many questions like these – perhaps involving Darwin, Napoleon, Einstein, Babe Ruth, or Moses – that would give a student the chance to use newly available technological tools to do research, and would provide a platform to use as a starting point in understanding the events involved and their implications.

The topics chosen – if the students don't choose for themselves – would obviously have to be tailored to different ages, but I suspect that even some younger students would be able to write a few paragraphs on what life would be like without television or pocket telephones (and it certainly wouldn't hurt if they thought about it). Perhaps they wouldn't be able to fully understand the history of those inventions, but they'd probably have some ideass about life without them – especially after reading “Little House on the Prairie” or some comparable work.

And older students could use their imaginations outlining a problem in modern science or society, and suggesting a plan for solving it, without retreating too far into the world of fantasy. Or maybe with such a retreat. It might take some research into current events or technology, but that could be useful – especially for future entrepreneurs. It would also give them the chance to give some thought to their own futures. Apart from future professions, having them consider how their lives would change if they had a baby could affect their behavior.

None of this is especially original (it's probably a standard technique for teachers), but the memorization of uninteresting and seemingly irrelevant facts, however useful it might be on a multiple-choice examination, is unlikely either to excite the student or engage him in learning. Reading, learning, and thinking – not to the book or the test – would probably provide a better hook for involving him. And it would probably interest the teachers more. It might not provide the metrics desired for evaluating students and teachers, but good teachers are the best evaluators of good students, and good supervisors of good teachers.

I suspect, however, I'm living in the past.

Next episode: “Staying Alive” – The goal of modern journalism.