Constantly changing education requirements
I don't think that anyone is arguing against the opinion that education is essential to, not only the continued economic recovery of the United States, but also for the general progress of the world.
Don't expect another cheap shot diatribe against the public school system. On the one hand, it's too easy to find anecdotal evidence to rail about. On the other hand, seldom are any new ideas forthcoming. I fact, I have been both a teacher and elected school board member and my wife just completed 30 years in elementary education. I know something about education.
More than election year posturing, what started me thinking about this was a confluence of three articles last month.
Jeffrey E. Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, writing in the June 21, 2004 issue of "Business Week" (Offshoring: You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet) talks about the things a country needs to do to promote competitiveness with the world. First are government policies to provide insurance, unemployment benefits and financing methods for education and training for displaced workers. Second is U.S. government pressure on other countries to develop consumer markets at home, rather than to always look at the United States as the ultimate market for goods produced everywhere. His third point was to educate more scientists and engineers and revise immigration policies to allow more foreign technical talent to come here.
Note that two of the points involve education, and specifically training in fields where there are employment opportunities. There is precedent for our political leaders to use the "bully pulpit" to try to direct people into fields of learning essential for national survival. I was in the 5th or 6th grade when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite into space. As a boy good in math, I was groomed for a career in engineering from that moment. The same thing could happen now (only boys AND girls, of course).
Steve Lohr's article in the July 2004 "PC Magazine" (The New Geek) explores how a degree in computer science is not an end game, but rather "today[base ']s liberal arts" degree. I take this to mean that, like once a liberal arts degree gave a student a foundation in everything that mattered so that the student could then spend a lifetime exploring and learning things that mattered, so now a computation degree can be the foundation leading to careers in process control, finance and other business disciplines.
Gary's take: Get a foundation of education, but never stop learning.
The third article was by Marshall Goldsmith in the July 2004 "Fast Company" (Learning department, "If They Don[base ']t Care, Don[base ']t Waste Your Time"). He uses examples from his grade-school teacher mother and his consulting practice to throw light on the truth that if a person (of whatever age) doesn[base ']t want to learn and change, then they won't. And no amount of cajoling or commands will work until that person decides to change.
Elementary teachers from across the country (and probably around the world) will tell how kids from families that don't care have many strikes against them from the start in school. And if they don't learn, where will they wind up in society? It's time that we get out of the lockstep, early-20th century manufacturing model of education where a kid either gets it when society says it's time or possibly loses it forever. We need continual entry points for those poor souls who wake up later than others.
That and realizing that what we teach has to change with the times. I'm not talking about core values, but rather to determine those disciplines that must be emphasized in each generation.
6:24:38 PM 
|
