by Tim Lee
(Note: This is the second column in a series about public education written by Tim Lee, the interim superintendent of the Sartell-St. Stephen School District.)
Elementary education has focused on instruction that introduces and reinforces basic skills like reading, writing, science and the arts. Middle-school education is meant to be the bridge between elementary schooling and the rigors of high school (secondary education); secondary education is completely different and was designed as such.
In the late 1800s, approximately 3 percent of all high-school graduates went on to post-secondary institutions and 97 percent “terminated” their education either during or after high school. At this time, the Committee of Ten – made up of ten university presidents – created recommendations that standardized the high-school curriculum for all students; that is to say, they developed a system that would provide all students the necessary requirements for a university degree.
In 1910, approximately 18 percent of youths attended secondary school and approximately 9 percent graduated high school.
By 1940, 71 percent of all youths attended high school and 51 percent graduated. This era in public education is referred to as “the high-school movement.” The push for more secondary education was a result of child-labor laws and a desire to better “compete” with changes happening in European education systems. Teachers were licensed in accordance with their discipline. This remains true to this day: science teachers are even more narrowly “licensed” (earth science, physical science, biological sciences and more)
This standardized system of secondary education served the nation and the economy in the post WW II era. The little-known secret is that large percentages of students were not headed to universities but to the workforce, which was filled with high-paying, low-skill jobs. In the 1990s, automation began to eliminate most of those jobs. What was left? High-skill jobs that either required university training or other post-secondary education, including apprenticeships.
It was at that point in time the nation may have been served by a total system redesign. If the purpose of a standardized secondary education was to determine who would have the knowledge and skills to succeed in university settings (sorting students), the safety net of high-paying, low-skill jobs disappearing should have beckoned the call.
Instead, the system remained the same, but the purpose of education changed. Schools were now tasked to get all students to high levels of educational proficiency. Why? Because even those not going on to college needed higher levels of skills. Unfortunately, a systematic redesign did not occur because no one wanted to admit the fundamental design was no longer sufficient to address the renewed purpose of education.
There were and are other factors that led us to stay with the status quo like we were all used to (for example, the nine-month calendar with summers off and a seven-hour day). More days in school and perhaps longer days were an affront to our sensibilities. Alternative calendars typically only found a home in districts where overcrowding and an inability to build new schools were present. To add insult to injury, the Minnesota Legislature continued to add “requirements” to the graduation standards.
Here is a thought: Instead of a standardized curriculum, why could we not conceptualize a personalized curriculum, one which allows students to pursue their gifts and interests? My next column will tackle those questions.
