Regressive Education -vs- Progressive Education
In the debates President-elect Trump expressed his intent to return management of public land to the individual states. Though he did say he believed the land should be federal, he thinks the management should be local.
This will substantially increase school funding in the western states for education and infrastructure. The question should be that, when it comes to education within those States, do we keep on a progressive track or regress to a simpler time?
If we only listen to educators they make a good argument for progressing education like “the times have changed” or “technology is too advanced to back track.” However in this debate they leave out substance and facts.
The truth is in looking at the numbers (per population) since the 1860’s. There are less individuals graduating or even finishing school, hours in school have increased 4 fold, and funding has gone out the roof. High schools need to push for college because when our children leave they still aren’t ready for a real job.
So lets look at the 2 arguments based on these facts.
There are less individuals graduating or even finishing school. In the early days there weren’t as many individuals going to school but the ones who did find the time between chores and preparing for winter had a 90% chance of graduating a scholar in the 8th grade. The test you see here is an example of one of the early tests from 1912 Kentucky.
Hours in school have increased substantially since the introduction of liberal ideals, which have no real reason to be called education. Some examples would include gym, liberal arts, and “preparing them for college”. Though most would say gym and liberal arts are important as most children do not get the exercise to be healthy and they need to have a worldly view through the arts.
The question should be how many of these functions are actually based on getting a real job when they graduate? In the early years students only attended classes twice a year for about 4 – 6 hours a day. Their time was spent in the fields helping their families make a living to feed the average of 9 children each.
Funding has gone out the roof as these policies get linked with learning. Wages have increased for all those hours in the classroom, and the need to make buildings pretty, even if most students don’t really want to be there.
All high schools these days need to push for college because when our children leave they still aren’t ready for a real job. Such classes being pressed are remedial reading, remedial math, etc. The question is why? It’s not really about funding as I pointed out. It isn’t about not enough hours. Again, I point out going from 4 to 6 hrs a day to 8 and adding more months to the school year.
Looking at these facts, I find the argument that technology has advanced to be a valid one. Most technology actually makes life, both in school and out, easier not harder. In looking at these facts one must ask themselves what actually has changed? Is it the way of doing business or the way our schools teach?