Does Our Current Education System Really Prepare Students?

What is the purpose of education?

There may be many answers to this question.  One such answer could state that education’s purpose is to prepare young men and women for the next steps in their lives, whether that be college or the working world.  This preparation can be defined as providing students with the skills, learning strategies, and knowledge they will need to successfully participate in a post-secondary or professional environment.   In other words, school should give men and women the tools they need to survive in an ever-changing and challenging world.  So, this definition begs the next question:  Does the current education system truly propel our students to that level?

The question posed above is one being asked by many people in the education field.  We are living in a time in which two “schools” of conflicting thought on pedagogy are butting heads against one another.  These concepts can, for the use of this discussion, be named “status quo” and “reform”.  It is also important to note both concepts draw upon the important trend of using data driven instruction.

For the most part, the status quo school of pedagogy places the importance of data driven instruction on the spirit of the standardized testing methods, mandated by each state, as the way to evaluate the effectiveness of learning and the sufficient achievement of students.  This standardized testing is the culmination of subject content presented during the academic year, and serves as the benchmark for whether or not students should proceed to the next grade level.

Conversely, the reform school of pedagogy draws upon the important elements of data driven instruction, but sees the scope of evaluating academic achievement as a more interactive, application-based endeavor.  Project-based learning – that requires practice and acquisition of cumulative learning strategies, scaffolded questioning – rooted in critical expounding of content learned, and authentic assessments – based on real world situations all contribute to a multi-facet method of evaluating student learning and preparedness for the next level of their education.

There exists a rather strong debate in education circles regarding which of these two concepts is the most beneficial for students,

and which one best prepares students for college and the working world.  Supporters of the status quo ideology often tend to think that the state structured standardized tests administered at key points in public education help hold schools and districts accountable to high quality learning.  These tests are seen as a reflection of this high quality and effectiveness.  No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislature often composes the majority of the motivation behind this accountability and assessment system.  As such, status quo educators believe this system to be sound in determining students’ preparedness for the global community and professional world that awaits them.  It provides requirements for highly qualified teachers in both learning strategies and in content knowledge in the subject areas they teach.  This accountability does indeed provide the first step in ensuring quality meaningful learning can occur in the classroom.

Reformers, however, are not so sure that the status quo system is really effective in preparing students.  Some reformers note a high average dropout rate as evidence that the status quo system is not working.  One reform supporter states this rate is approximately 30% – an alarming and astounding figure (Brogan, 2009).  Further, he reports this statistic costs the US economy around $350 billion per year in lost revenue.  Therefore, this is arguably not an effective pedagogical structure in the eyes of reformers.  Another source takes this claim of ineffectiveness further by mentioning that some of the 70% of students who do graduate high school wind up not being prepared to handle the rigors of collegiate studies.  The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development informs us, on Forbes.com, that the US is only fifteenth in industrialized nations when it comes to college graduation rates, and links much of this disparity to inadequate academic preparation prior to embarking in post-secondary studies (Mitchem, 2009).  Mitchem further wants to debunk the myth that the majority of the college dropout rate is less student financial hardship, as apparently has been the usual assumption.

With these criticisms of the status quo system in mind, how do reformers suggest current classrooms become improved?  One solution is a focus on global competitiveness through industrial preparedness.  It is believed by some reformers that focusing curriculum on activities that prepares students for economically lucrative and globally competitive industries will not only create more motivating instruction, but will also better prepare these future professionals in an ever-changing world – as well as fill the industrial voids that stand in the way of the US remaining a nation able to compete in the global market.  For example, President Obama’s Educate to Innovate campaign provides one avenue in which to achieve these goals.  The campaign believes that increasing interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) at the elementary and secondary levels, in addition to creating partnerships with top companies, foundations, non-profit organizations, and science/engineering groups along these same lines – will created a renewed motivation in education and the more applicable, project-based instruction reformers advocate (Newmark, 2009).

A second solution reformers suggest as improvements to the status quo of educational structure is the utilization of “new media” materials.  New media refers to web 2.0 and other digital and online tools, which can be applied to classroom strategy and content knowledge.  Proponents of new media in the classroom see its use as more relevant to students – due to their fascination with technology, more project based – therefore more applicable to real world situations, and better tools with which to assess genuine student learning.  In sum, reformers who support instruction through new media believe this methodology better prepares students for college and beyond that standardized testing can alone.  If you are a returning visitor to my website, you probably know to which school of pedagogy I most adhere.  While I am relatively new to new media instruction, it find it very intriguing and the possibilities to be seemingly endless.  For an example of new media as real world application through instruction, feel free to visit the Student Media Project page of this site by clicking HERE.

To conclude this discussion regarding the fork in the road with which present-day education structure is faced, I have experienced a relatively subtle power struggle occurring between traditional education and education reform – both on paper and in the classroom.  Through some of my student teaching experiences, I have actually conflicted with a classroom teacher regarding this very conflict (me being the reformer, of course).  The world is changing, and the most effective teachers are those who can change with it.  Doing so keeps education relevant to our students interests, and more importantly, keeps education relevant to the working world we live in.  Finally, staying relevant to the working world is something our students must be able to grow up and achieve if we, as a nation, are to remain competitive in the global community.  It’s for these reasons, in part, that I write much about technology in the classroom.  Let’s keep the discussion going, as it’s through our communication that we can maintain this relevancy.

So, does our current education system prepare students?  What do you think?

Uncategorized | RSS 2.0 | Respond | Trackback |