Lately, it seems every bit of non-fiction I've read has been about education. Apparently, despite having no desire to have children of my own, I desperately want other people's kids to succeed because when it comes down to it, I really, really like kids and I want them to grow up to be happy, well-adjusted adults who will in turn raise kids to be happy, well-adjusted adults. I ran across
this article in Times awhile ago, and I still don't know what I think. My initial gut reaction was the reaction that many of the people had to Fryer's idea which was "But, but you should WANT to learn. Learning isn't just about getting a job! It's about using knowledge and making connections that will help you with your entire life process!" and "Not everything should have tangible rewards. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do because it's the right thing, the just thing, the hard thing, it's the thing that's the most worthwhile, no matter the payoff." and "But people have got to want to help themselves and sometimes helping yourself doesn't mean an immediate, tangible reward." But those reservations aside, I dunno, maybe it is valuable to get kids to associate good grades and the things you learn from school like being on time, not being rowdy, learning how to work in groups, learning how to deal with authority and all that with financial well-being because it increasingly is. The only people in America right now who are going to be able to succeed in the completely brand new information economy are people who go to some sort of institution for higher learning whether it be a traditional college or university or some sort of trade school. Basically, the shit you learn in school is way more important now because there really isn't any unskilled labor around that's going to pay you a living wage. As my brother, who hates school, thought he could buck the system and not continue his education in some way (and actually succeeded, he works full-time at Burger King, was made manager in about a year and a half and has health insurance! All without college.) but soon came to the realization that that was no life and as he says, "Gotta have skillz, son."
So I guess the things that stuck out for me in the article were these:
It's pretty scientifically rigourous and Fryer doesn't think it's a magic bullet, just part of the solution. He feels like I do, which is that there is no ONE solution to the quandry of American education, but rather a whole system of reform, whose relationships with each other will effect the change (which is exactly what Fryer says.)
"To this day, I can't tell you what will predict one or the other," he says. "I could walk into a completely failing school, with crack vials on the ground outside, and say, 'Hey, I went to a school like this, and I want to help.' And people would just browbeat me about 'the love of learning,' and I would be like, 'But I just stepped on crack vials out there! There are fights in the hallways! We're beyond that.' " Okay, that just made me laugh.
It worked in some places. The lesson here seems to be to show kids that there are things that they need to do to succeed and thsse things are things that they can actually control. Also, there is apparently a gap with what adults think are obvious things to kids, like asking the teacher for help, and what kids actually know to do.
And most importantly, ::shock!gasp!amazement! having kids read actually, yanno books, teaches them to read! What a thing!
So, I still don't know what I think.....anyone else have any thoughts?