Ok this is my idea for reforming pre-university schools.
The first and most important thing is to get rid of grades and rote learning. What replaces it? A portfolio of projects done over the course of a persons education. So instead of memorizing and rote learning a subject, instead a student in high school is treated like a graduate student and asked to continuously over the course of the years to do a project in each subject like English, Math, Science, Art, History etc. The project will be published and explained in the school journals, which then gets peered reviewed by other teachers at the school. The high school will have a partnership with local Universities that will suggest projects, and perhaps mentor the students. In fact, the teachers aren't called teachers anymore, but mentors. Lectures will be given on all subject matters that are required by projects, but no grading is done on these classes. This tries to mimic the way that crafts used to be learned in the past. If a project requires you to learn about the US constitution, then that is what you do, either by sitting on lectures on US constitution, or by going off on your own and learning about it. You might sit in on lectures on abstract algebra, or philosophy etc, for your projects. If the project requires you to learn abstract algebra, that is what you do, but if the project does not require divinity, no need to sit on those lectures this semester. If the project requires you to think and write clearly, that is what you do. In fact, since you must publish, clear writing and communication is a must in all projects so you might want to go to all those lectures. The first project will be a disaster, but a great mentor knows what to do with that, and that is where the learning happens. Each succeeding project will show marked progress. You hone your craft by repeated practice through mentoring.
The role of the teachers is to help students when they get stuck, and to assign projects that are not too hard, or at least so that if the student needs to master a subject, it will be with the goal of the project. Some projects will be done alone. Some in groups of two, and some in slightly larger groups.
So the idea is to turn education on its head. We work on interesting projects, and only learn those things that are required by the project. If the project is interesting and deep enough, all the same learning happens, but it is far more interesting and links all the disciplines of learning into one fun effort. When we go to university, we already have the skills to succeed, and when we get a job, we have thinkers that solves problems in how the real world works.
Can this happen? The biggest impediment I see is that we as parents and a society are short sighted and use metrics that require constant micro-managed quantitative reports, i.e., grades, so that we can tell if real learning is happening and get some psychological gratification. But by itself, grades kills creativity and curiosity and love of learning and fails to understand how a human being is motivated.
The first and most important thing is to get rid of grades and rote learning. What replaces it? A portfolio of projects done over the course of a persons education. So instead of memorizing and rote learning a subject, instead a student in high school is treated like a graduate student and asked to continuously over the course of the years to do a project in each subject like English, Math, Science, Art, History etc. The project will be published and explained in the school journals, which then gets peered reviewed by other teachers at the school. The high school will have a partnership with local Universities that will suggest projects, and perhaps mentor the students. In fact, the teachers aren't called teachers anymore, but mentors. Lectures will be given on all subject matters that are required by projects, but no grading is done on these classes. This tries to mimic the way that crafts used to be learned in the past. If a project requires you to learn about the US constitution, then that is what you do, either by sitting on lectures on US constitution, or by going off on your own and learning about it. You might sit in on lectures on abstract algebra, or philosophy etc, for your projects. If the project requires you to learn abstract algebra, that is what you do, but if the project does not require divinity, no need to sit on those lectures this semester. If the project requires you to think and write clearly, that is what you do. In fact, since you must publish, clear writing and communication is a must in all projects so you might want to go to all those lectures. The first project will be a disaster, but a great mentor knows what to do with that, and that is where the learning happens. Each succeeding project will show marked progress. You hone your craft by repeated practice through mentoring.
The role of the teachers is to help students when they get stuck, and to assign projects that are not too hard, or at least so that if the student needs to master a subject, it will be with the goal of the project. Some projects will be done alone. Some in groups of two, and some in slightly larger groups.
So the idea is to turn education on its head. We work on interesting projects, and only learn those things that are required by the project. If the project is interesting and deep enough, all the same learning happens, but it is far more interesting and links all the disciplines of learning into one fun effort. When we go to university, we already have the skills to succeed, and when we get a job, we have thinkers that solves problems in how the real world works.
Can this happen? The biggest impediment I see is that we as parents and a society are short sighted and use metrics that require constant micro-managed quantitative reports, i.e., grades, so that we can tell if real learning is happening and get some psychological gratification. But by itself, grades kills creativity and curiosity and love of learning and fails to understand how a human being is motivated.
