It
matters what children
are learning. But it also matters why
they're learning it.
Why
do we send children to school? Is it to “compete in the economy”
and “compete for jobs”? Well, whom are they supposed to compete
against? What if they'd rather cooperate to
get what they want? What if encouraging a culture of competition in
school, and the
economy, and sports,
and our militant
culture, is actually harming us, and we need a dose of cooperation to
balance it out?
Children will never learn anything – especially not critical and abstract thinking skills - as long as they are expected to learn most information in the context of “how can I use this information to climb the socioeconomic ladder?” After all, nobody should be willing to compete against their own neighbors, friends, and family for resources, for the bare scraps of survival. Yet many of us are, because of what we're taught in school, and how we're taught.
In
rich and poor districts alike, youth culture glorifies raking money
in through whatever means necessary, and in an educational system
which decreasingly teaches valuable practical hands-on skills, that
could very well mean more young people becoming unskilled janitors
and food service employees, failed rappers, drug dealers or
prostitutes, or sellouts to the interests of exploitative companies.
Education
should be about transmitting knowledge and skills, and teaching
students how to think critically, think for themselves, and
independently investigating what other people are teaching them is
the truth.
Schools
and economics textbooks assume and teach that there is not enough to
go around, and that therefore government and markets need to
distribute and allocate what scarce resources we have. However, the
study of economics – and economizing (that is, saving money) – do
not need to be applied to resources which are abundant, because
they are not scarce, and there is enough of them go around. The
resource in question might be fixed (as in the case of land),
but fixedness does not necessarily guarantee that the resource is
scarce.
Between
one-third and one-half of all food in America is thrown away, and
without food waste there would be enough food to support 2.5 billion
additional human beings. Not only is food not scarce; air, water,
land, and many other of our basic needs, are abundant, or could
easily become abundant or free (or at least cheaper) by removing
government interventions and cronyist privileges.
It
makes absolutely no sense for a child to go hungry at school, and be
expected to concentrate while hungry, because their parents have
failed to keep current on their lunch payments. Teaching kids that we
have to work and compete for everything we want, and that even
food is a privilege that can be taken away from us, might
prepare them for a cruel world, but it also normalizes such a
cruel world in the process.
Our
society has chosen short-term financial gain over the real purpose of
living: learning how to live a long, healthy, fulfilling life, doing
so comfortably, and helping others to do the same. Nobody is going to
care about truth over money, nor people over profits, until they stop
prioritizing short-term gains, and keeping up with the Joneses, and
frantically saving and stowing away for the future, refusing to share
what they have earned with other people.
As
far as my thoughts on education policy go, education vouchers
(just like housing vouchers) could serve as a popular multi-partisan
compromise. Libertarians, progressive Democrats like Elizabeth
Warren, progressive conservatives, conservative Democrats, and maybe
even some neoliberals, could be convinced to support vouchers, if the
proposal for it were triangulated right.
During
his 2016 campaign, Gary Johnson suggested that students engage in a
year-long nationwide boycott of colleges and universities. This, he
says, would increase colleges' demand for students (and their money),
thus drastically lowering the price of tuition as soon as the boycott
ends. Hopefully, this would lead to at least a few good years of low
tuition, driven by people engaging in voluntary exchange through the
market. Of course, that only works for privately funded schools,
because publicly funded universities can only be fully
boycotted once the flow of taxpayer money into them ends
completely.
The
decline over the last few decades in the number of wood shops and
auto shops in high schools concerns me. While I understand parents
who say they're concerned that their children might get injured while
taking wood or auto shop classes, acquiring hands-on skills is a
valuable professional skill to have; especially now that trade skills
are in higher demand. While students should not be pressured to take
these classes, students who are enthusiastic about taking them
should be asked to sign forms and waive the right to hold the school
responsible for any injuries they sustain while taking them (but
within reason, and with the schools' and teachers' responsibilities
to ensure safe operation clearly defined).
I
personally spoke to a former high school shop teacher, who told me
that his classroom equipment was removed without notice, after the
course was terminated, on account of wealthy parents who were
concerned that trade skills would lead their kids into “low-class
jobs” like carpentry, electrician work, H.V.A.C., and plumbing. Of
course, that is nonsense, because these are needed and valuable
skills, there is no shame in providing them.
Additionally,
students introduced to such skills early could easily become
interested in more advanced fields; specifically S.T.E.M. fields
(science, technology, engineering, and math), which often pay even
more than trade jobs. Getting more people into the trades, and into
S.T.E.M. fields – and making sure that everyone owns, or at least
has access to, means of production - could very well be the only way
to protect our nation's future when it comes to jobs, technology, and
industry.
I
hope that America's educational future is one which features the
inexpensive and efficient transmission of knowledge and skills. It's
not that teachers owe students an education; teachers and students
each deserve a seat at
the negotiation table when it comes to the costs involved. Online
learning, distance learning, PDFs, e-catalogs, and other technologies
have made education less expensive, and if universities expect to
survive, then tuition must fall.
Additionally,
I hope that America's educational future features the dissemination
of knowledge through decentralized learning. Little could be more
effective at ensuring that such decentralization of knowledge becomes
possible, than encouraging people to not only read, but to question
what they read; to do their own research, verify facts independently,
and come to their own conclusions.
Written
on July 4th,
20th,
26th,
and 27th,
and August 1st through
4th,
and 6th,
2018
Edited
and Expanded on September 4th, 2018
Originally
Published on September 4th, 2018
