Educational philosophy inevitably morphs with time, but the pendulum swing to the extremes always puts a spotlight on the flaw in contemporary educational thinking. The article is correct in the printed observation, but only highlights the symptoms of a larger issue. The article itself takes a myopic look at one aspect of today's educational culture while ignoring the bigger picture.

First of all, yes, I would agree that there is a population out there pushing for "Harvard." However, of what value is a Harvard education to a would-be teacher, accountant or business manager? The answer is, of course, very little, the reason being that you can get credible degrees from hundreds of higher education institutions and wind up doing just as well in a chosen career field. This, though, is only a symptom.

The big issue is the overall direction and focus of education. Education in America has always been examined with tunnel vision. If one looks at educational systems in other cultures (especially ones that do better than ours), one would see a greater diversity in educational focus. In Japan or Germany, it's not just about reading and math, but science, the arts (all of 'em), history and culture. In other words, educating the whole child. This concept has been around since the days of Aristotle and Socrates. It worked then, and it works now. In America, if reading scores are down, what do school districts do? They put every spare dime into reading-related professional development, reading assessment, reading materials, and they allocate double, sometimes triple the time to reading class. Unfortunately, that means that time and resources are being diverted away from everything else in order to handle one problem.

The other issue the article points out is the 30,000 things that kids do in their day. This signals the mentality shift that started back in the 90s. Kids are not taught to focus on a few things and do them very well, they're taught to "experience" everything. In essence, they experience nothing because they either have no time to practice any given skill, they do an activity for a year or less and quit to do something else, or they simply don't have the brain capacity to take it all in. So, we have a generation of "jacks of all trades," yet they truly are masters of none.

Again, I refer to the ancient Greek model of education. The idea was that everyone spent time learning mathematics, language, music and visual art, and athletics, but only those that excelled in one area or another would follow that path to higher education. Remember "tracking?" In the 90s, they told us that tracking was bad. They said it "labelled" kids and made them feel bad. Well, perhaps it did a better job of tailoring the educational system to the individual needs of kids than our current system does. We've made tremendous advances in actually teaching kids of various abilities, but I think the idea that every kid is going to be an ace at everything is unrealistic at best.

So, now we come back to parents. Parents aren't responsible for their kids' education. Schools are. So, when something goes wrong, parents who generally don't know any better (unfortunately) scream that something should be done. That only activates the government to impose more laws, regulations, and restrictions on public schools. Parents' lack of understanding also creates such insanity like the father of some Poindexter kid demanding that his kid make the starting line up of the football team, and of course, if he doesn't get his way, he'll sue. This level of demand without responsibility is dangerous on a good day.

All of this ties into what I've called "self-esteem education." Kids aren't allowed to feel bad, so they're not placed in any situation where they might be "labelled." Of course, we turn around and demand individualized education. A bad grade might hurt a kid's feelings, so we sue the teacher and the school district for failing little Johnny, or worse yet, try to eliminate grades altogether. Of course, we turn around and complain that the kids aren't being held accountable for learning anything. Kids are told to go "find themselves" and "experience" half a million activities, but never get good enough at them to find out what they really like and what they have a shot at doing at a high level.

It seems to me that we need to go back to basics. Teach the basics of math, science, language and the arts. Allow the future mathematicians to take AP Calculus III. Let the average math student get by with Algebra I. That kid will probably do better in AP English or perhaps focusing on music or something else. We need to allow kids to try new things, but at the same time, teach them to stick to their commitments and see things through to completion rather than dabbling in this and that. Overall, we need to start emphasizing quality over quantity. Parents need to realize this as much as our educators do.

Well, I don't know if Germany should be the model we're looking for in the States. They track their kids early and often, and don't get me started on the role of class in determining if Johann goes to university or trade school. If people thought upward mobility in the States was tough, well, in Germany is has almost as much as to do with who your daddy is as how good the grey matter between your ears is.

The one thing Germany does to well is that its vocational training will provide you with a marketable skill.

Sorry, Son...I was kind of shooting from the hip on this one. Suffice it to say that on this subject, I have a LOT to say and it's hard to put it all into a moderately concise post.

First of all, I don't think Germany is a model for much of anything American. I was just trying to reference one thing that seems to be a trend with most cultures outside of America. I think it works, and I think that a well-rounded education that includes the arts is far superior to 7 hours of nonstop math and reading. You just don't get to enough of the brain that way. I apologize for the confusion.

For the record, I am happy with the country in which I live. I'm an American, and I'm proud of what this nation has accomplished, even with our flaws. Given the choice, I'd pick the USA every day of the week and twice on Sundays. This is one of the reasons why I think at least looking at other nations is a good thing. It can help ground you in reality and help you honestly assess your own procedures against your worldwide competitors. One thing I think we're lacking anymore is an understanding of American culture and heritage, and one avenue to present that culture to our children is the arts. If there is a fault of the American educational system is that it tends to be very myopic and only focuses on the micro rather than the macro.

Great post Ford,

I would have to say, however, that I disagree with your point that parents aren't responsible for their childrens education. From what I have seen, parental involvement is actually much more important than inate ability as far as your kids success, and while schools are responsible for giving your kids a chance at learning, it is pretty much up to the parents and the kid to make sure they actually learn something.

The school can try every way it can to persuade kids to learn, but if parents don't make sure the kid learns, the kid isn't going to learn.

There really is an advantage to going to Harvard over your local state university...but it is not education. If you are good enough for Harvard, your town library is really all you need to education yourself. What you get out of going to Harvard or other big-name schools is connections.

Personally I chose the honors program at my state university (because of scholarships and costs), and even there, the connections I built were invaluable. It has been nearly fifteen years since I entered college, and looking at the friends that I met back in that honors program that I still have contact with, I see diplomats, professionals in numerous government agencies, doctors, lawyers, a dozen professors in diverse fields, Hollywood actors, scientists and engineers working in many of the major companies or government labs, etc. The same is true of grad school and my post-doc (though most of my connections there are scientists, as I am one myself). Equally important is the breadth of my world-wide connections. College took me from a rural white boy who could count the number of black people he had ever spoken to on one hand to someone with friends and connections from around the world.

The powerful connections a school like Harvard brings you are exactly what you are paying for.

What, actually, is education for?

Is it to prepare our kids to compete in the global economy? To be cultivated, interesting individuals? Act as holding-pen for troubled teens? Or to structure our society along "meritocratic" grounds?

Frankly, I have no idea. Looking back at my high-schooling in England, there was very little of practical value other than a smattering of French and a grounding in economics. Hardly a productive use of six years' study.

I reckon that in 100 years time people will look at our system of education today in horror and disbelief.

Good post. My comments...

FordTruck5Speed:

However, of what value is a Harvard education to a would-be teacher, accountant or business manager? The answer is, of course, very little, the reason being that you can get credible degrees from hundreds of higher education institutions and wind up doing just as well in a chosen career field. This, though, is only a symptom.

Absolutely true. In fact, in some fields, you're better off NOT going to Harvard. If you look to see "what are the best programs in field X" sometimes the answers are surprising - Central Whateverstate U., while solid but not outstanding in most areas, may have an absolutely outstanding program in teaching, or chemical engineering, or some other specific field. For those who do their homework, it's like finding gold among sand - a less expensive school, and an outstanding education that people in that field will recognize the value of.

FordTruck5Speed:

Remember "tracking?" In the 90s, they told us that tracking was bad. They said it "labelled" kids and made them feel bad. Well, perhaps it did a better job of tailoring the educational system to the individual needs of kids than our current system does. We've made tremendous advances in actually teaching kids of various abilities, but I think the idea that every kid is going to be an ace at everything is unrealistic at best.

My elementary school started tracking for reading and math in the upper grades. Some parents complained because they thought it was elitist, so it was eliminated - for a year. The problem was, the bright kids were bored out of their minds, the kids who were below average were lost from Day 1, and the average kids couldn't concentrate with the kids on either end of the spectrum causing trouble because they were bored or lost. When classes are tracked, the bright kids can be challenged, the average kids aren't distracted, and the kids who need more help can be taken through things more slowly - they may not learn as much, but they'll actually learn something. The key, I think, is having some degree of mobility in the tracks; if a kid goes to summer school, catches up with the smarter kids, and thinks they can handle a higher track, you have to let them try. Too often, changing tracks is a one-way process. Some kids were afraid (or perhaps it was more their parents) that if they left the "high math" class, they'd never get back in.

FordTruck5Speed:

All of this ties into what I've called "self-esteem education." Kids aren't allowed to feel bad, so they're not placed in any situation where they might be "labelled." Of course, we turn around and demand individualized education. A bad grade might hurt a kid's feelings, so we sue the teacher and the school district for failing little Johnny, or worse yet, try to eliminate grades altogether. Of course, we turn around and complain that the kids aren't being held accountable for learning anything. Kids are told to go "find themselves" and "experience" half a million activities, but never get good enough at them to find out what they really like and what they have a shot at doing at a high level.

We also have teachers being told that correcting in red is too harsh. Some schools are having them use green or purple. When I first heard that, I was SURE it had to be a spoof... but no, it's not. Some people are even saying that the corrections should be in black, so they don't leap out. Um, excuse me, but if someone puts corrections on a document for me, I WANT them to stand out. Then I can easily see what they ARE. What's the use of corrections that blend in?

Thanks Sakura, and EG, you always lend a little dose of reality to "The Fray." 1stinLastout, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Again, I apologize, I was kind of shooting from the hip here and I have way too much to say on this subject to make it work in one of these posts. I really need my own radio program. Anyway...

First of all, you're exactly right. The home is where I think the bulk of practical life education should take place, and parental involvement can make or break a child's education. What I was getting at is that it seems like, as a society and a public education system, we are trying to lift more and more responsibility from parents, and they are more and more willing to give it up. That's my fear, and unfortunately, my observation. Case in point, I know a woman who sent her 5 year-old to kindergarten without knowing any of the following information: how to spell his name, his parents' first names ("mom" and "dad" don't count), his address, his phone number, how to count to 10, the letters of the alphabet. Mommy's explanation, "They're supposed to teach him all that in school, right?" My jaw still hurts from hitting the floor so hard (I'm 6' 2". It had a long way to travel).

That's an extreme example, but I've seen way too many times in my life parents that simply don't give a crap and don't participate in anything their kids do. They don't go to football games or concerts. They shoot down their kids' plan to join the band because they don't want to drive the 3 miles to the school for the whopping two concerts they play in a year. They don't pay attention to their kids' class work and out-of-class assignments. But, they're the first in line to bitch about the teachers' "unfair" grading, scream at school administrators about thier kid not getting this or that, or file complaints because the school dared to discipline the poor baby. On top of that, when idiots like this sue, they often win. Parents certainly should be responsible for many aspects of their kids' education. Unfortunately, many choose not to be.

Sorry. This is what I get for posting before my second cup of coffee.

FordTruck5Speed:

Case in point, I know a woman who sent her 5 year-old to kindergarten without knowing any of the following information: how to spell his name, his parents' first names ("mom" and "dad" don't count), his address, his phone number, how to count to 10, the letters of the alphabet. Mommy's explanation, "They're supposed to teach him all that in school, right?" My jaw still hurts from hitting the floor so hard (I'm 6' 2". It had a long way to travel).

I used to babysit when I was a teenager. One kid I know started kindergarten and didn't even know his basic colors - red, blue, yellow. He wasn't a dumb kid, it wasn't that he couldn't learn - he just was never taught. And when the teachers let the mother know that he needed some help to catch up, she accused them of being prejudiced because she was from the South. (She also never disciplined the kid; he didn't understand that it was not acceptable to throw the couch cushions at the babysitter. She did pay well, since for some odd reason she had trouble getting babysitters, and in a neighborhood where there were a lot of teenagers who babysat too... hmmm wonder why?)

But isn't tracking predominant in American education? It was my understanding that almost all high schools had a form of tracking. Or at least the kind of high schools Applebaum appears to be addressing in the article. You have remedial, average, honors, and AP classes. You can schedule to take them as many as can, or the school district might set criteria on eligibility, but the program is still there. Anyway, I support this system. The students in the article Applebaum is addressing, who are loading up on APs left and right, are achieving that Greek model of arete - excellence in everything, or at least trying to achieve that goal.

I'll understand your point, though, if you mean to address the system as a whole, beyond high school, and that small subset of overachieving nerds the article is talking about.

Also, you seem to propose that while academically students should achieve excellence in everything, but that in terms of extracurricular activities, students are suffering because they experience everything, but master nothing? That's the whole point- they're not taking these activities (usually) to be the best track runner, oboe player, or red cross volunteer that they can be. They're still kids, they shouldn't expect or strive to be masters at these things when they don't even have a high school degree. What they should be doing is exactly what you criticize - they should be "experiencing" things, all kinds of things outside the world of teachers and books. And let's hope they do so before they become adults with jobs that lack the ability to experience the things they had the opportunity to experience before they tethered by their careers.

Narc, you just indirectly called music an "extracurricular activity." You may as well have declared war. Instrumental music uses more of the brain than any other activity known to mankind. If you want to have that debate, plan on being here for a while...and doing a lot of listening. Anyhoo...

My point was simple. You have kids involved in an insane amount of activities. They are out until 8, 9, 10 o'clock every night of the week. They don't have time to get to all the activities, much less get homework done. It's one thing to play sports and get involved in a variety of things. It's quite another to have a dozen different activities going on in the same week. It's also insane that kids do something for a few weeks and quit to go do something else. I notice this all the time with things like...drumroll please...band and orchestra. God help you if you spend more than a month and a half actually learning how to play the instrument. Long-term skill development DOESN'T HAPPEN because kids assume that the first two weeks of an activity is going to look and feel the same as the 5th year. And of course, you have parents that don't know how (or simply refuse) to direct their kids into making good decisions and maybe looking out for their best interests.

Look, I see kids that should be experiencing things like art, music, theatre, political debate, and more that simply don't because they have to play every sport that the school and community have to offer. I'm not even talking about the top athletes. I'm talking about the back-up place kicker holder that plays right field for the JV baseball team who's also the 3rd string point guard and reserve golfer. "Oh, but he just has to experience all those sports." No, he can experience a sport (or at least one per season) and leave room for other enriching activities that he ACTUALLY SHOWS TALENT FOR.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is a symptom of yet another big picture issue, specifically, that parents and students can't and don't prioritize. Kids MUST pursue excellence in SOMETHING. Maybe not everything, but for crying out loud, SOMETHING. It just doesn't happen, because kids don't know how to prioritize. If you as a teacher try to guide that student into this or that, you're stifling their creativity and not letting them find themselves. Bullshit. You're helping them to find what they might have a chance at achieving success with.

You have to understand the progressive nature of education and human development. Somewhere down the line, in addition to experiencing a variety of things, they need to find something they are good at and take it to its highest level. A human's level of satisfaction with his accomplishment is directly proportional to the degree of difficulty and/or sophistication of the endeavor. No, kids don't know this and even high school kids won't understand it if you explain it that way, but parents and teachers, regardless of jargon, should be helping kids to do it. It's about achieving balance, and that's something we've lost in our society. It's either all or nothing, and that mentality is detrimental to a kid's developmnent.