(Author’s note: this is the third in a series of articles regarding public education in the United States and our community.)
by Tom Lee
Interim Superintendent
My previous two columns focused on how public education had specific purposes and the roles of elementary and secondary education.
Now, I would like to address the question I ended with: Instead of a standardized curriculum at the high-school level, why could we not conceptualize a personalized curriculum, one which allows students to pursue their gifts and interests? Minnesota currently requires life science, earth science, physical science or chemistry for graduation. To be fair, the state does have “equivalent classes” for some areas in order to move in the right direction, but they are quite limited.
Of course there is a need for some standardization for the system to meet other goals like citizenship. However, if we are to be successful in preparing “all students for college and career,” it is time for us to stop pretending the design of the current system does anything well except preparing those who are bound for college.
Students who want to attend college typically take expanded core courses (for example, Advanced Placement classes). Students who want to go straight to the workforce still need to take the core requirements, but the courses that would prepare them most are currently electives.
If decision-makers required four years of science, math and more but broadened our definition of those subjects, we could allow students to pursue their interests and fulfill graduation requirements. Who doesn’t better engage in learning when the subject interests them?
If we look at fulfilling requirements not just through traditional science and/or math but through the lens of applied science and/or applied math, a sample high school catalog may include the following courses which are currently electives as meeting science or math requirements:
Metals: A traditional metals course addresses metals’ properties and what needs to be done to manipulate them (fabricate, weld and more). Instead of a Technology Education elective, could this not be considered applied science?
Construction: How is understanding weight loads for a roof or wall angles not applied math?
Accounting: Typically, accounting is considered a business-education elective and not a math class. How is it not a math course?
Culinary Arts: Students learn about how various ingredients and food groups (carbohydrates compared to protein, for example) impact nutrition, weight gain/loss and a variety of other things. How is that not an applied science?
The traditional path to college would still be available to those who desire it, but alternatives could be more readily available for those not headed for college but rather headed into industry, the military or technical schools. This “redesign” would better fit the needs of industry and our economy. It would also better serve students. There are examples of some of this occurring in high schools around the state and in our district. The examples are limited because of the state-mandated requirements.
Let’s be honest, our standardized system no longer serves the needs of many — if not most – of today’s students or our economy. It is time to rethink the design of secondary education. I am hopeful industry and business representatives would lobby for such a change. If we are looking to better serve the needs of students, I would hope educators and parents/guardians would speak up to bring about such practical changes.
