The ills of our education system are well documented: low levels of reading and writing, poor comprehension of mathematics, near total ignorance of history, the arts and the world at large. The attempt to remedy these failings has been a steady push to increase the number of subjects and classes students are required to take. Unfortunately, teaching more has diffused and disrupted learning not enhanced it. Therefore, I propose that much less be taught, and that it be taught slowly.
To begin, the old saw about “readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic” is essentially correct. Without a reasonable grasp of these skills, students will make little or no progress in their educations. I divide these into two sections: reading and writing, and mathematics. In the former category falls nearly every academic course. In a U.S. History course, for instance, the emphasis should be on reading and writing. What is read and written about should be U.S. History, but still the emphasis is on reading and writing. For instance, the Federalist Papers are an excellent introduction to the thinking that helped shape U.S. history. To read the Federalist Papers, however, takes time. I would think a minimum of two weeks to read, discuss and begin to understand these important works. After a few weeks of reading, another week or two is required to then reflect upon the works and write an essay of perhaps four or five pages. In three weeks to a month, students will have had time to read, write and think at length about some of the key issues in U.S. history. Necessarily, students will not be able to cover a whole host of other material. To spend time reading and writing requires time, which require student to have less to do so they can focus on reading and writing. When the emphasis is placed upon History, the impulse is to reduce the amount and quality of reading and writing so that students can cover the maximum time-span. The result is the multiple-choice test in which students attempt to reproduce a set of given facts about a vast swath of history without ever having read or written about anything at all. To avoid this, however, requires accepting the necessary limitations of time and attention and admitting much that is worthy of study students will not read. Not only will each class cover less material, administration must reduce the number of required courses. One cannot read and write about Plato, the Revolutionary War, Jane Austen, Egyptian Civilization, and Contemporary Politics simultaneously. Much must go, but little will be lost as the evidence suggests students now know virtually nothing about these subjects in any case. Fewer courses covering fewer subjects, reading about and writing about a greatly reduced number of topics will, counter intuitively, produce better-educated and more skillful students.
Math is slightly different. Mathematics, as opposed to arithmetic, is a way of thinking. Humans, like dogs and ravens, are quite good at arithmetic – counting, adding and subtracting simple sums. We begin to struggle with the rigorous logical structures that make up the true subject of mathematics. The reason students struggle so mightily with the dreaded word problem is because it requires a conceptual understanding of the logic of a mathematical process rather than a mechanical reproduction of some simple rule. To overcome this difficulty requires time and careful study. If students can read, understand and then apply mathematical principles to the solution of carefully crafted word problems, then they grasp the necessary concepts: If not, not. Students need fewer problems, and more time spent working through the logic that informs each new mathematical idea. Students can learn this, just not quickly. This model suggests that students should work far fewer problems – which is an attempt to train mechanical responses – but the problems tackled should be conceptually challenging. After problems are worked in class, discussed, understood, reviewed and several examples have been solved, students should have little difficulty with any particular concept. Our current emphasis on solving large number of nearly identical problems for each new rule or law is, in many ways, counterproductive. The rigors of logical thinking cannot be instilled through repetition. The dismal performance of our students on every possible math evaluation demonstrates this conclusively. Yet, math instructors do not alter their approach. By covering less more slowly, students would gain a deeper understanding of mathematics but would, again, complete fewer mathematical courses.
In practice, the deceleration of education means students are going to be able to take fewer subjects. Students should only have one math or science course and one or two academic classes at a time. With the addition of physical education and perhaps an art or music class, you have a complete schedule. Currently, students take as many as five academic courses at a time. Over the six years from 7th grade through graduation, this would mean students taking twenty fewer courses. On the other hand, it would also mean at the end of six years students would have read, discussed, and reflected upon over a hundred important works from history, literature and philosophy. Further, they would have written several hundred pages of essays and should be accomplished writers. Equipped with the logical rigor acquired from mathematics, these literate and thoughtful students would be exceptionally well prepared for the intellectual challenges of the modern world.
The protests against this approach to education are too numerous to address individually and they are, in any case, rebutted by the current sorry state of public education. One common misconception I would like to mention. It is argued that since we live in a world of such vast amounts of information, students need a much greater number of courses to “prepare” them for the world. That there is a great deal of information is not arguable. However, there has been a vast wealth of information since at least the 17th century. Any claim that one is being introduced to a comprehensive range of material is a charade and has been for several centuries. It does not matter how much new information is generated in the world because human faculties have not changed. The fundamental skills remain the same: reading writing, thinking. Without them, the world is a cipher; with them, the vast expanses of human knowledge is available for exploration.