New York State schools to cut back on "non-core subjects"

WAMC Northeast Public Radio ran a story according to which: The New York State Education Department Commissioner has presented a series of recommendations to the State Board of Regents. At the middle school level, those proposals include cutting back on non-core subjects so that more time is available to improve performance in core subjects like math, reading and English

The main victims of the changes are the technology and home and careers skills courses (ie: shop and home ec). It wouldn't surprise me if physical education requirements are the next to be cut back.

Keep in mind that I have a B.S. in math and that I am a writer...

*The last time I cooked (a skill I learned in home ec class): The day before yesterday

*The last time I fixed something with tools (a skill I learned in shop class): Last Wednesday

*The last time I played tennis (a skill I learned in gym class): Earlier this month

*The last time I calculated a square root by hand (a skill I learned in 7th grade math class and quickly forgot): 7th grade math class

*The last time I made a parts of speech diagram (a "skill" I learned in 9th grade English class): 9th grade English class

If the core subjects had a practical dimension (like learning how to balance a checkbook as part of math; for me, this is a real-life use of imaginary numbers :-) , this might not be such a big deal. Instead, students are taught mostly theoretical stuff, especially in math and science, that have little use in the real world unless you specifically have a math- or science-related job.

If the educational process emphasized rigorous thought processes rather than rote memorization, we might have a better educated citizenry. But the educational process is more of an assembly line designed to produce widgets, where personal attention isn't really possible. Except for special ed students who get the benefit of infinitely more resources than gifted kids or even "ordinary" ones.

This isn't the fault of teachers, who are held to answer for the poor performance of their laziest and least motivated students, under a perverse definition of "accountability." It's the fault of a system that was designed to address 19th and early 20th century realities.

If students were shown the skills necessary to figure things out for themselves and then be allowed to do so, it might not only motivate them to go to school in the morning but it would also prepare them far better for the real world. But that can't be easily quantified on a standardized test, the holy grail of contemporary education. And if it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist, according to "conventional wisdom."

New York's Education Commissioner, Richard Mills, has said that standards have to be toughened and universalized because colleges are complaining that, for example, engineering students aren't properly grounded in the math necessary for that field. (I wish I could find the exact quote but I can't.)

This comment demonstrates Mills' approach, an approach which has changed the face of education in New York State in the last decade. Mills' emphasis on core academic subjects and de-emphasis of "fluffier" material sounds good in theory. People who merely question the standards' structure are blithely lectured about the importance of expectations. In other words, if we expect more, they'll do better. That's all it takes. Simple, eh?

The problem with one-size-fits-all is a simple, politically incorrect reality: not everyone goes to college. Mills' assumptions seem to be based on catering exclusively to the college-bound student. It's certainly important to well-prepare college bound students; whether the very structure of the educational system does that is another question. But where does the near-exclusive focus on college bound students leave the remaining students?

Society is based on a delicate balance. If our country was made up solely of engineers, who would fix the electrical short in your living room? (Especially since scrapping tech diminishes the do-it-yourself aspect) If our country was made up solely of scientists, who would fix the problems with your car motor (Especially since trade education is undervalued in this country)

It's not good enough to simply talk about high expectations and then wash your hands of those who drop out because they don't meet those expectations. The point of education is supposedly to prepare you for life, whether that life includes college or not.