On the State of Education

Browsing yesterday's editorial page this morning, I noticed a series of entries from high school students contemplating just what they believe to be essential to the adequate preparation of themselves and their peers for future success. I found myself nodding in sage agreement with the initial entries, clearly properly trained, delightfully thoughtful and insightful youth promising good things for the next generation in charge. Then I came across an entry that sounded much more like an echo of contemporary political brainwashing, which made me realize that all that sagacity that had preceded it had to be reflections of older voices as well.

What particularly disturbed me, however, was the emphasis on "hands-on learning" over standards-based learning," at least as it was discussed in the editorial. The writer was particularly enthusiastic about exclusive project-oriented, outcome-based learning. Now what, you may well ask, could I possibly find objectionable in that? Is not the purpose of public education, after all, the preparation of functional adult workers?

Here's the thing: there has always been hands-on learning, whether it was called vocational training, apprenticeship, internship, or shop and home ec. There will always be a place in society for hands-on learning because there will always be a need for those who can and do eagerly seek employment with their hands. We don't actually need formal, government-funded schools for that sort of training. There will always be a place in society for those who wish to pursue entrepreneurship, who seek satisfaction and fulfillment in commerce.

Traditionally, school was not meant for everyone, not offered to everyone. Truth to tell, not everyone appreciates the unique opportunities available in a school setting, nor should they have to experience them. The kinds of work and opportunities best served by school training tend to deal with intangibles, at least in part. Those who seek to serve in government, in law, in medicine - in short, in the professions - are well-served by the rigors of classroom education. The give-and-take of open discussion based on extensive readings, and the thoughtful writing that follows such activities, helps to broaden horizons and open future leaders to new avenues of thought that are also connected to deep wells of tradition. At least, that's the potential and the theory. Going off half-cocked in a public venue for hands-on experience without having first considered what has gone before is not a useful learning activity for such students.

Those who wish to build better bridges, design better transportation, manipulate finances, or otherwise work with tangible constructions are happier in the doing and benefit from extensive hands-on experience early in their educational careers. One would hope that enforced contemplation might help to mold such workers' sense of shared community values, but anything enforced is a crap shoot at best.

And what of our artists, musicians, athletes, and other performers? How do we best serve them as they seek to hone their respective crafts?

Yet we throw all our students into one barrel and then wonder why one system does not answer for all. What idiot composed the initial query that set the question as a dichotomy anyway?