Learning

Advice to writers: Write about something of which you're relatively ignorant.

Yes I know that contradicts the usual advice which is to write about something you know, but I don't agree. First of all it will give you the opportunity to follow the old comic routine, “Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.” More important (and less preposterous) it will provide the opportunity to learn about something which may have always interested you, but which never reached the top of your list.

Most important, however, it gives you the chance to think “outside of the box.” As an outsider you're not weighed down by what everyone in the field “knows.” Perhaps the cognoscenti would all remind you that there is nothing to be gained by “reinventing the wheel,” and that the best step forward is from “the shoulders of giants,” but you realize that a “wheel” is not likely to help you in your quest, and that stepping off shoulders will leave you flat on your face in front of those who preceded you. Ignorance gives you the chance to say something new and different about a subject already filled with “common knowledge.” Maybe you'll be wrong, but what you say will be honest, and faithful to your most important reader – yourself.

Several years ago I wrote Haggadahs (books delineating the meal service for the holiday of Passover) for my children. They included commentary on ancient history and religious practices, based on my own ideas. I was ignorant of what Judaism's sages had to say about the same issues during the millennia of our existence, but that didn't daunt me. I suspect that I contradicted many of them, but I'm satisfied with what I said, and I'd be surprised if some of my thoughts weren't on the mark.

Today's discourse will adopt the same approach. It's about education. I'm not a professional educator (I've taught medical students and residents, but that's more like apprenticeship – not that apprenticeship is such a bad thing. Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere served apprenticeships, and they turned out alright) but that won't stop me because I think we're missing on some important points. My ideas certainly aren't original but that's okay with me. They're based on the obvious – what I consider to be the goals of education: to prepare individuals to live in their society, to ready them for most of what they'll encounter over their lifetimes, and to provide them with the knowledge and skills to practice the professions that society requires. I'm aware of the fact that people are different: different in goals, skills, and interests. No, there's nothing new in what I'll say, but much of it is currently out of date; it doesn't conform with modern educational thinking. What follows is not a comprehensive plan, only some thoughts. To wit.

I'm an unswerving supporter of a common core. There are certain skills that everyone should have, though individual limitations may govern the level of proficiency achieved, and they are based on (are you ready?) the three R's. Basic literacy and numeracy are more critical for any society than rocket science for a few intellectuals. (Of course the basic scientists will tell you that pure science – science for its own sake – is a worthwhile investment of public funds. It may not pay off for hundreds or thousands of years (long after the taxpayers funding it are dead) – or not at all except to satisfy the curiosity of those seeking grants to fund their projects – but it's more important than other undertakings.) Of course we should be prepared, even at an early age, to offer some highly motivated and talented (chosen by tests, professional evaluations, or whatever methods work) students special tracks in fields like science, mathematics, and music, where early learning has the potential for producing geniuses, prodigies, and the like. But for most, a grounding in fundamental skills should be contained in the first lessons they receive. (Morality and ethics should also be early lessons, although there is certain to be disagreement over what is “right” and what is “wrong.”)

Add to that a basic knowledge of the local governmental system. It may be our wish that democracy would hold sway everywhere, but the minimum is some knowledge of how your own government works. Or doesn't.

[Thought should be given to the international provision of such basic education to poor countries, as the UN attempts to provide health services around the world, and many nations respond immediately to natural disasters in other countries. Indeed, a basic education might, in subsequent years, lessen additional needs for international aid by those countries.]

For many, however, an education of this kind won't be adequate. For them the preparation for a trade is seen either as a necessity or the path to a calling. Whether that trade is plumbing, carpentry, theology, or medicine (or, for that matter, the teaching of art, history, or English) is irrelevant, because all are required by the society in which we live. We'd be in sorry condition if we didn't provide both for those who seek a trade that will allow them to support their family's bodies, and for those who need to feed their own souls and those of others. Depending on their age at the time the decision is made, the education should be tailored to contain both the skills of the trade, and, if desired by the candidate, the theoretical fundamentals and the blandishments which will make him better and happier about what he does, but that needn't be required. Starting earlier, and without irrelevant distractions (an electrician doesn't need to know Greek history, and a clergyman's sermon will be just as good – or bad – if he has no background in calculus) the individual will have more time to learn what will be his life's work, and he'll be better at it.

There's a third group – a varied group – consisting of those at a loss for their future goals and seeking to delay a decision or to find something that interests them, those desiring to have a comprehensive background in all areas, and flat-out dilettantes. Their path is costly and time-consuming, but sometimes indicated – at their own expense. While most of those enamored of a particular craft won't be sidetracked, there's no reason why someone on the trade route couldn't also spend time in some such learning. But it's not a necessity. The program would be what we now call “Liberal Arts.” It's one of the main causes of student debt. It's what made up the classic model of education – certainly for upper class – and has been around for centuries. But its main beneficiaries are tenured professors and those students who want to be supported by their parents for a few more years of partying. And, of course, philosophy majors. What's most important to emphasize, however, is that despite the hype, college isn't for everyone. It's not a “right,” and it certainly doesn't guaranty an increased income – not for those who aren't interested nor those unsuited for higher education, whatever the reason.

A final group is worth mentioning: those who wouldn't be capable of benefiting from any of the usual programs. The reasons are many and include disability, resistance, and disruptive nature. They, too, merit education, but they may not fit conveniently into any of the categories mentioned, though they should not be automatically excluded from them, especially if those trained to recognize potential can do their job (Einstein appeared to be a “slow” learner but he blossomed with time and education).

There are also some general issues that cross some borders – issues that have no relationship to each other but which must be considered when planning an educational system. I'll list some of them in no particular order.

1. No matter how good the teacher, for many students lectures are boring, and involving them through active participation – like a question and answer format – may serve to stimulate greater thought and interest.
2. Someone has to pay for education. Should it be all taxpayers or only those who use the schools? Should industries that will benefit from educated workers chip in?
3. To what degree should we allow “relevance” to guide the choices of the student? Who decides what is relevant? At what age (or developmental stage) is it the responsibility of the student, rather than the parent, to make good or bad choices?
4. Recognizing that children are programed to learn certain things when they're very young (e.g. language), How can we incorporate this into the curriculum? Should everyone get such training?
5. Training in the use of the tools currently in use (nowadays it's computers) and those that are expected to change society (“the next big thing”) is warranted.
6. Students can choose which college they'll attend – at least of those to which they're admitted. Should that be an option in lower grades without affecting their costs?
7. Good teachers are often undervalued by government and salaries should be re-evaluated to reflect teachers' value to society.
8. Mixing students with different abilities is counter-productive. We are not all equal, and egalitarian attempts to make classes diverse so as to reflect society are harmful to everyone, leading to teaching to the weakest in a class.
9. Nevertheless, faculties should be diverse rather than homogeneous, and a variety of opinions expressed.

The most important lesson, however is that students should be taught to learn! Most of their lives will be spent outside of school, and whether they're more comfortable in a classroom, the public library, or in front of a computer, they should know how to take advantage of the situation to learn, and they should want to do so.