Arguing About Schools

The intention of this blog entry is to organize my own thoughts so I have a reasonable refuting response to some standard claims. No hard feelings.

The standard curriculum in the standard school of your standard education system contains many subjects and sub-subjects: In Math, it usually goes from arithmetic, through algebra, to calculus. In history, it usually selects a few periods in the history of (white) Europe. In language and literature, it selects certain writers and periods. And so on, in several fields.

One may ask questions about the necessity of teaching everybody all these different bits and pieces of human knowledge, bearing in mind that most of us studied all these subjects until we got tested, then effectively forgot everything. Moreover, most of us never regret having forgotten how to solve quadratic equations - we never needed it. Most of us never need algebra - the last time we needed to find X was when a teacher threatened us with a bad grade. The huge majority of us never thought about the cosine of an angle after the last math test. Just to make sure this text is not a private vendetta: I personally have used algebra and calculus a lot after school, and I often enjoy it. It’s just that I recognize that I am in a small minority in that respect, and would like to alleviate the pain of my fellow humans, who suffered needlessly. Below are a few standard replies to this statement, together with refutations.

Disclaimer: This is not a valid study, but a collection of anecdotes that gives clear impressions. I am not aware of a serious study into these matters.

"School exposes kids to different options, so they can make a more informed decision about what’s interesting to them". It is the answer we got as primary school kids, and many of us still believe in it. I will try to address this claim.

• Person A finished studying the standard curriculum plus electronics and computers (which he chose). Then he worked for a few years in electronics, after having to go through a post-school course with a great teacher, so electronics would make some sense, which 3 years of school couldn't do. Still, the basis taught at school was indeed useful. Then he moved into computer programming. Having studied about computers at school was not very relevant to working: Whatever relevant knowledge acquired during the school time was acquired outside the curriculum. Then he moved into management. Nothing taught at school prepared him to motivating people, teaching, accounting, legal thinking, marketing, etc. Then he moved on to issues even more remote than anything taught at school. So, what he got from school, that served him, was: Literacy, English as second language, Arithmetic, algebra (calculus had to be relearned), and basic Electronics. The rest: Literature, History, Civics, Physical Education, Physics, Geography, etc. were irrelevant at best, and damaging at worst. The issues taught in K12 school which did expose Person A to something relevant to his life were actually chosen by Person A after not having been exposed to them in the standard school
• Person B finished standard school, and went on studying mostly education. Then she started working in the education establishment, working with people, teaching, researching - none of which had much to do with what’s taught in school. Then she moved into alternative medicine - again, irrelevant to school… K12 school contribution: Literacy, English, Arithmetic
• Person C finished standard school, and went on studying occupational therapy. Then she went on working in various paramedical jobs having nothing to do with what she was exposed to at K12. K12 school contribution: Literacy, English, Arithmetic
• Person D finished standard school and worked at a variety of jobs, mostly working with his hands, and occasionally studying what he needed to go to the next level. K12 school contribution: Literacy, English, Arithmetic

… You get the picture. It doesn't seem that school exposed these people to relevant options, though it did spend much time exposing them, to theoretical options which were irrelevant. A serious study would be interesting, but the reader is hereby challenged to conduct an informal review of people around them. I bet the picture remains generally the same.

"School teaches kids to how to study", so it doesn't matter much exactly what is being taught
That’s a great goal. Let’s see how our designated persons did:

• Person A never really learned how to study
• Person B remembers a single high-school teacher who had a positive influence on her ability to study, but she clearly remembers that going into university, learning to study was a shocking experience
• Person C never really learned how to study, even having earned a Masters’ degree
• Person D did learn how to study at school: At high-school he had such a bad teacher for a certain subject, that he had to teach himself to study
• Person E once said that his high-school did teach how to study (terrible statistical practice, introducing a new sample because it is “interesting”)

… This non-study humbly suggests that most K12 schools do not teach how to study.

"Young kids can’t be expected to know, and shouldn't be forced to decide what their future direction in life is"
True. The same is true for not-so-young kids, like 40-year-olds.
This should be used as a reasoning for letting kids follow their interests, giving them truly general skills that are likely to serve them in the future, whatever choices they make.
This should not be used as a reasoning for forcing the kids to learn a specific subset of the vast human knowledge, which will be soon forgotten and not likely to ever be missed.

"Different subjects taught at school are meant to practice general skills, rather than just the specific subject"
For example: Geometry teaches spatial perception; History teaches how to study, and how humanity works; Algebra teaches.... something.

First: Show me. There must be serious research showing such benefit, to justify spending most of the K12 years (13? 14?) studying material which is admitted by this indirect-benefit claim to be irrelevant in its own right.

Second: Spending so much time requires a serious discussion about which general skills need to be practiced indirectly. What about social skills, emotional resilience, the habits of learning, critical thinking, the ability to entertain ideas without committing to them or against them, teaching, non verbal communication, leadership, etc etc?

Without proof that useful skills are being effectively practiced, and without consideration which skills are even necessary, this indirect benefit claim doesn't have much substance.

“School teaches social skills”
In school, recesses are short, and teachers normally don’t take it to be their job to look for opportunities to improve children’s social skills. If we are lucky, the kindergarten teachers do. Looking around, including in the mirror, we don’t seem to be very good at conflict resolution, dealing with frustration, sharing, anger management, listening, being assertive, etc.

Unfortunately, school does not do a very good job promoting social skills.

“School provides general knowledge needed to be a valuable member of society. To converse”
This one may be true. We do want to create a cohesive society, with a common language, background and narrative.
Persons A-D know each other and occasionally meet. They talk about the state of education, about cars, politics, alcohol, raising children, security, money, social justice, management, astronomy and a host of other issues they didn't learn at school. They occasionally do talk about issues that resemble school material: They talk about history, but usually what they found out after graduating from school. They talk about books, but never in the terms taught at school. K12 school does provide a common subject to grumble about, but that’s hardly enough reason to maintain it as it is. Still, it needs to be acknowledged that much of the "commonness" - the indoctrination into society - is not very readily visible to us, and it may be that school provides a lot of it.

Rays of light:

• The “K” of K12 - Kindergarten - often does provide gentle exposure to options, teaching basic patience necessary for studying, practicing social skills and telling stories for the common narrative
• The first few years of school provide an essential basis of literacy: Reading, a bit of writing, Arithmetic, second language
• We can do so much better