Design an education system

[ray245]

We all have problems with our nation's education system, with issues ranging from failing to give enough room to creativity to failing to let the students study enough facts.

So what do you think an education system should be like based on whatever real life limitation you will face while creating or implementing a education system? Things like finding enough good teachers to determine what kind of knowledge and skills a person with a basic education should have if he failed to enter a university or college, what percentage of the population should get the chance to enter a university or keeping note of what kind of trained workforce do you want to suit your countries requirement.

Hope we can get some decent discussion about the education as a whole.

[Intio]

Step 1: Critical thinking skills. Before everything else - critical thinking classes. I'm sure that others would have ways of making this 'fun' and 'accessible' for young children, but it would have such a base-line effect if children could be brought up with clear and lucid ways of analyzing new information and beliefs.

Sorry I can't go into as much detail as your question asks for right now.

[Hawkwings]

I'd say that reading is just as important, probably more important, than critical thinking. Besides, doesn't the growth timeline of the brain preclude teaching critical thinking before age 12 or so?

[Zwinmar]

Allow and enforce teachers teaching. In the US the biggest problem (I think) is that the teachers instruct for the final test rather than giving knowledge

[Solauren]

Japan's education system comes to mind....

With the final mark not just being the exam, but say, 40% of the mark.

[[R_H]]

Japan's education system comes to mind....

With the final mark not just being the exam, but say, 40% of the mark.

Isn't that already the case? I know that in Alberta the 12th grade provincial exams count as 50% of the final grade.

[Intio]

doesn't the growth timeline of the brain preclude teaching critical thinking before age 12 or so?

Yes, maybe i was a bit hasty in saying "before everything else", but I wasn't aware of an neurological inhibition to separating out 'emotionally convincing' from fact etc., simple stuff like that could be set out I suppose. Nothing too intricate, just preparing the ground.

I should also stress that I am not a parent - so I am willing to be told off for my ignorance of a child's developmental stages if that is indeed the case.

P.S. The only thing similar that I have heard of is the 'age of self-consciousness' being around 8 years old.

[The Romulan Republic]

What exactly does "age of self-consciousness" mean? And why would it not apply to seven year olds?

[CaptainChewbacca]

It seems to me we might need to get away from the whole 'you can be/do anything if you try hard enough' mode of thinking, because while its nice and makes you feel good, it's just not true.

I propose having multiple 'tiers' of education;

Tier 1: Future doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers.
Tier 2: Service people, technicians, sales, etc.
Tier 3: Manual labor, menial work, etc.

Every year, a child will be tested and evaluated based on their scores to be placed in one of the three tiers. The categorization is by no means permanent, and it could be a child who was thought to be T3 in fourth grade might turn out to be scoring as a T1 by 7th grade. Their secondary education will be more tailored to their likely career, and instead of everyone going to college, only those whose likely career paths will require it would go to college.

It seems good, but at the same time it sounds a bit Gattica-ish to me.

[[R_H]]

It seems to me we might need to get away from the whole 'you can be/do anything if you try hard enough' mode of thinking, because while its nice and makes you feel good, it's just not true.

I propose having multiple 'tiers' of education;

Tier 1: Future doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers.
Tier 2: Service people, technicians, sales, etc.
Tier 3: Manual labor, menial work, etc.

Tiers being how extensive the pupils' education is?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes. A Tier-3 highschool student probably wouldn't have a calculus class, but he might take metal shop or auto repair.

[Knife]

Indeed, something like Chewie's but...


Elementary school would more or less stay the same. Emphasis on Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, adding some more skills at 3rd grade and more at 5th, with Primary education ending around 6th or 7th grade. Aptitude tests at 3rd, 5th and last year (whether 6th or 7th) for placement.

Middle school would start to divide the population into groups depending on what the aptitude tests in elementary school showed. Lower tier would continue with basic education and skill till High school, while middle of the stream folk get higher classes and high end people start getting preped for uni and higher education.

By High school, all the tiers are separated. Low tier students get funneled into vocational schools depending on their aptitude, middle level start to get seperated into uni prep or vocational school prep and high end into early college programs.

All through it, I would seed the system with ways for lower tier people to test into higher tier at all grades. If they have the aptitude to go higher, go for it. Same with high to low end. If some kid just doesn't wanna go to college, they can of course get into a trade school.


Just a quick overview, I'm sure there is plenty wrong with it. Curious what Red says about it.

[Themightytom]

Step 1: Critical thinking skills. Before everything else - critical thinking classes. I'm sure that others would have ways of making this 'fun' and 'accessible' for young children, but it would have such a base-line effect if children could be brought up with clear and lucid ways of analyzing new information and beliefs.

Sorry I can't go into as much detail as your question asks for right now.

Ruh Roh, we're going in the wrong direction then, "Everyday math" is hewge in the US and it amphasizes conceptual thinking

http://www.everydaymathsuccess.com/

Although it would be nice people could do both..

[Guardsman Bass]

I was thinking along the lines of a kind of two-part education system:

1. Preparatory: Essentially, this is where you learn all the basics. Mathematics, history, english (and a choice of foreign languages - pick one), as well as some type of "life skills" courses that would teach people things like how to balance a budget, calculate the interest on a credit, cook a number of recipes and healthy meals, and so forth. This would go until sometime about 13-15 (I'm not quite sure on where to start). If you want to throw in a logic class, this might be the place to do it, with some type of refresher course later on.

2. Academy: The idea behind this is that you would have a bunch of schools ("academies") that would act kind of like themed charter and magnet schools do. They'd be based around some type of vocational or educational theme (such as a science-focused school, maybe, or one centered around certain skilled trades), possibly with attendance required in some "refresher" courses in overall math, science, history, etc attached. When you graduate, you would get your high school diploma, plus possibly some other qualifications as well depending on the school you went to (a cooking-themed school graduate would probably graduate with the equivalent of a food handlers' permit).

The preparatory education would be enough for you to try to get into any one of the academies, and there's no time limit - if you complete a year in one school and don't like it, then you can transfer to a different academy. The academies might even have different lengths to graduation.

That's sort of the idea, at least. I'm a little hesitant to do a tiered education system where the kids who suck at test-taking get dumped into the "preparation for manual labor" schooling.

[Coalition]

12 years for free. You can learn as much as you want in those 12 years, all paid for by the state. If you work hard and manage to get into college level courses 3 years early, those will be free. Of course if you goof around and have to repeat classes, the time still counts against the 12 years.

Of course I'd have the outliers where the teenager is starting on a Master's degree, but that would be rather enjoyable.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How would you prevent people from falling behind in the lower tiers if they have periodic opportunities to elevate? Won't they be learning less intensive, different things in the first place? How would they be able to transition tiers? And are you using one metric as the basis?

[D.Turtle]

It seems to me we might need to get away from the whole 'you can be/do anything if you try hard enough' mode of thinking, because while its nice and makes you feel good, it's just not true.

I propose having multiple 'tiers' of education;

Tier 1: Future doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers.
Tier 2: Service people, technicians, sales, etc.
Tier 3: Manual labor, menial work, etc.

Every year, a child will be tested and evaluated based on their scores to be placed in one of the three tiers. The categorization is by no means permanent, and it could be a child who was thought to be T3 in fourth grade might turn out to be scoring as a T1 by 7th grade. Their secondary education will be more tailored to their likely career, and instead of everyone going to college, only those whose likely career paths will require it would go to college.

It seems good, but at the same time it sounds a bit Gattica-ish to me.

This is similar to the system we have in Germany. In Germany, you have the Hauptschule (up to 9th grade), Realschule (10th grade), and Gymnasium (12 or 13th grade). The problem with the German system is that after 4th or 5th grade your parenst decide (or the teachers decide - depends on the state) to which school you go to. It is quite difficult to move up from a lower level to a higher one - not because there are many obstacles, but because the learning grade is quite different. This leads to the problem that is quite diffcult to move up the social ladder, because worker's children are more likely to go to a Hauptschule or Realschule, while the children of highly educated are more likely to go to the Gymnasium. Again, not because there are obstacles, but because of the differences in the social backgrounds, different expectations etc.

To make such a tiered system work properly, you have to send everyone to the same school, and then sort out later - in effect, decide after 9th grade if they should do the additional grade for Realschule, and after that decide if they should go on the Gymnasium etc.

[ray245]

It seems to me we might need to get away from the whole 'you can be/do anything if you try hard enough' mode of thinking, because while its nice and makes you feel good, it's just not true.

I propose having multiple 'tiers' of education;

Tier 1: Future doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers.
Tier 2: Service people, technicians, sales, etc.
Tier 3: Manual labor, menial work, etc.

Every year, a child will be tested and evaluated based on their scores to be placed in one of the three tiers. The categorization is by no means permanent, and it could be a child who was thought to be T3 in fourth grade might turn out to be scoring as a T1 by 7th grade. Their secondary education will be more tailored to their likely career, and instead of everyone going to college, only those whose likely career paths will require it would go to college.

It seems good, but at the same time it sounds a bit Gattica-ish to me.

Something like that is used down here in Singapore. Where we separate students in secondary schools to the Express stream, the Normal academic stream and the Normal technical stream.

However, it is not that extensive to your level.

[Zwinmar]

I can only say on what I have seen in my limited experience in the U.S. namely that teachers are spouting out lies, especially in History. Secondary languages should also be taught at a very early age (the old joke that: if you speak three languages your trilingual, two language bilingual and, only one language your American). I for one have a very difficult time learning another language.

It is not about the teachers not being payed enough, it is that they are not allowed to do their jobs.

A tier system seems like it would work, but then you also have the stratification of classes (not that there is not one already). However, the fact that many graduate as illiterates is preposterous.

[K. A. Pital]

2 tier-system, first tier is universal for everyone, school age: 6-7 to 18 (not to 17).

2nd tier is determined by the first tier results, it's either higher education, or if the student cannot attain that due to falling grades, professional education. After professional education (3 years at most) is complete, the student may still take higher education if he is willing, that would be state-sponsored.

All second higher educations are not paid by the state.

No class approaches, universal standards for school education. School finish year should be pushed to 18 or 19, because at 16-17 many don't realize what they need and often make the wrong pick. On the other side, by the year 19 most students realize their preferences in life (exceptions always exist; but they aren't the subject of the system the task of which is educating most people).

Literacy (including a core of language, history and literature studies) and logic critical skills (including mathematical logic and general logic), taught both during lateschool, professional ("college") education and higher education regardless of the specialization taken.

Mathematical-physical core would be consisting of mathematics (algebra + calculus late school), physics, astronomy.

[Starglider]

The problem with making an exam only 40% of the mark is that it strongly favors girls. Girls (on average) do better at putting in steady effort over the whole course and do less well at 'stressful' exams, whereas boys tend to lose interest in coursework quickly, but are good at exams. This is less noticeable at university level but it's a significant effect for teenagers, and it's a major reason why girls are now well ahead of boys in academic performance in the UK (which has seen a steady shift to coursework over exams over the last 15 years). It's not a serious problem yet, but teenage boys are already inclined to say 'screw academia' and go pretend to be sportsmen or gangsters or rockstars or whatever, and trailing girls academically encourages this behaviour.

I am certainly in favour of a multi-tier (two or three) education system. Recently we have lavished far too much attention on the lowest 10% while neglecting the highest 10%, who make the greatest contributions to science, technology, arts and the economy.

[Coyote]

My personal favorite niche is history and humanities, so I'd like to see a system where kids start learning a language at an earlier age when their minds are more adaptable to such things. I always thought it would be cool to have a system where a kid can pick a part of the world that he/she is interested in and starts taking increasingly in-depth courses in history, culture, language, and current events. By the time they graduate, they'll be very well-versed in their chosen culture. All this would be secondary to whatever history, etc, classes are taught about their home county, of course (in my case, the US)-- you wouldn't supplant knowledge of one's own home with a course on citizenship in another country, after all.

But in America, we grow up so ignorant of other countries and people in the world, I'd like to see a system that turns out kids that know some language, history and culture of other nations.., and expand the languages taught beyond the old "Spanish, French, German" that was the standard.

[Starglider]

But in America, we grow up so ignorant of other countries and people in the world, I'd like to see a system that turns out kids that know some language, history and culture of other nations.., and expand the languages taught beyond the old "Spanish, French, German" that was the standard.

That runs into the problem of availability of teachers for more obscure languages, plus the fact that Chinese and Japanese are simply hard to learn. Calling for more language diversity is fine but it's not something I'd devote actual money to, not when there are many more pressing issues.

[Lusankya]

Personally I'd focus on one language. I basically learnt nothing in primary school Greek because every year the teacher would have to start again from scratch for the kids who'd come from another school and didn't know anything. For Australia, I'd probably chose one of Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian (most likely Chinese), since those are the languages most useful in an Australian context - other countries would probably choose differently.

Naturally, this is a recommendation that I'd make for English speaking countries, since most other countries do focus on English from a young age. Personally, I'd like to see an education system that left English speakers with a decent grasp of another language, because at the moment, most English speakers are shitheads when it comes to that.[/personal judgement]

[Mayabird]

Pfft. Toddlers in China and Japan have no issues learning their languages on their own. Foreign language education starts at the very beginning of schooling in many countries for this very good reason and they get very good results out of it. That core primary education most people have mentioned should include at least one foreign language from Day One.

I pretty much agree with the tier systems most everyone else has mentioned. My little pet project/early experiment would be to test if some musical education (instrumental, vocal, individual, orchestral, whatever) has any benefit for general learning, and how much if it does.