I laughed a little when I read Alex Knepper’s column (“Problem Not Lack of Time Behind Desks,” ODE, 10/7). It reminded me of the times I heard engineering majors complain about having to take history classes because those classes were somehow unimportant to their professional education, despite the fact that our society overwhelmingly accepts that knowledge of history is imperative to deter social disasters (like the Holocaust).
Knepper assumes that the purpose of education is to direct students into appropriate careers and concludes that the failure of American education to restrict “impractical courses” is a major cause of both educational disparities between Americans and other nations’ children and American children’s poor preparedness for “life’s challenges.”
However, Knepper never discusses the standard used to compare American education to that of other nations, so we have no reason to believe that career preparedness is the standard. Furthermore, Knepper seems to possess an immature notion of “life’s challenges.” One of the greatest problems humans face revolves around how they can enjoy life and how they can improve the lives of others. A liberal education provides tools for people to engage in the rewarding process of expanding their capacity to comprehend their world and interact with others in non-career settings. Liberal education is rewarding for the same reasons that travel is rewarding: we see new things and compare and integrate our experiences.
Even if we assume that the purpose of education is to make people productive members of society, we cannot conclude that students who have been prepared only to make money and not waste it are more beneficial to society than students who have been prepared to analyze society and the universe generally, as the second set of students can participate effectively in political dialogue of all sorts. The proletariats will never revolt.
Knepper is right to say that extending the school year is not a panacea, but he is wrong to ignore the fact that more sub-par education will still enhance students’ education. If Knepper wishes to establish that a longer school year (more of the same) will not help, he must first establish that the current school year does not help.
Knepper is also right to claim that educators should not assume that all children are intellectually identical, but the solution is much more complicated than separating children into intellectual competency cohorts. Psychologists have devoted a lot of research to the effects of a teacher’s expectations of a child’s performance on the teacher’s treatment of that child and the child’s subsequent performance.
Children who are perceived as less intelligent receive less teacher attention. The attention they do receive is not directed toward constructive feedback or encouragement to stretch themselves, because teachers do not believe that the performance of less intelligent children can improve. An educator may even react with hostility when a child whom he or she expects to perform poorly actually performs undeniably well.
Separation into intelligence cohorts exacerbates expectations of performance, and it does so based on preliminary and non-thorough analysis of each child’s potential. On the other hand, this separation may improve the education of the most intelligent children.
If Knepper’s only intention is to create a more productive economy, there may be some merit in improving the education of the elite at the expense of the rest.
[email protected]