​ ​Meads 1

Kaitlyn Meads

Mrs. Layton

English 1010

28 February 2019

Does the Educational System Need to be Reformed?

Topic Introduction

Over the last few decades, the debate of educational reform has surfaced. Most people

attend school from a very young age until their late teenage years - maybe more if they decide to

pursue a college education. School is a major part, if not the center, of their lives. How a student

thinks and solves problems can partially be contributed to an education. In other words, an

education is vital in the success of a student’s future. As a result, people have argued that

students need to receive the best education possible. The question remains: is our educational

system teaching students what they need to know for the future? Many people have come to the

agreement that the system needs to be reformed, but the debate continues on how to best

reconstruct it.

The educational system was first developed in the 19th century. At the time, education

was not a common practice. There were very few people who had the privilege of going to

school. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that the public school system was put into place.

Ideas derived from the Age of Enlightenment influenced how the curriculum was structured.

According to William Bristow, The Age of Enlightenment was a time period of “social,

psychological or spiritual development.” Philosophers of that time created a model of

intelligence that people base academic ability on today. In the speech “Changing Education
 ​ ​Meads 2

Paradigms,” Sir Ken Robinson states that the “Enlightenment view of intelligence” is having a

firm knowledge of academic works and being able to make reasonable conclusions based on

specific standards. In other words, intelligence is limited to a specific kind of thinking and

problem solving. This system is still used today. While this type of education may have been fit

to use in past years, changing times and arising issues have signaled the need for reform.

The curriculum taught in grades k-12 is conformed to the Enlightenment view of

intelligence. Children are taught to find one solution to problems that have multiple answers and

ways to solve them. In addition, classes are designed to help students gain a solid understanding

of academic works. Everything taught in these years is structured to help prepare students for

college - a place where this standardized schooling is continued. The chance of being successful

in college is contingent on how intelligent a person is. In other words, a person is expected to

have academic ability before they begin college. In “Are Too Many People Going to College,”

author Charles Murray states that this system makes it difficult for people who are not able to

comprehend specific topics or who were never able to attend basic schooling in their younger

years. Not only is the curriculum too demanding, but this type of intelligence is no longer

necessary for a successful future.

In the past, students were motivated to go to school because a standardized education held

weight when trying to find a job. Having a degree almost guaranteed them a position. Today,

while a degree can be helpful when finding a job, it is no longer a guarantee. Charles Murray

argues that a successful career is no longer correlated to a degree. Rather, success comes from

how skilled the person is in certain areas related to their job. Today, employers look for specific

skills potential employees poses when going through the hiring process. While the current
 ​ ​Meads 3

educational structure can help a student become more book smart, it does not teach them the

necessary skills needed in the working world. With this mindset, rather than being important to

students, education has become something that seems forced and inapplicable to their lives. The

increase in technology has worsened this mindset.

The current generation of students is stimulated by technology. They are used to

watching television, playing video games, surfing the web, texting, etc. Almost everything they

do is centered around technology. Every school day, they have to leave all of that behind. For

hours, they sit at a desk and learn how to be academically intelligent - a concept they believe is

useless and boring. They are plunged from one extreme to the other. Consequently, it is

becoming more difficult for students to focus and succeed with the current educational structure

in place. Arguments have surfaced on how to address this growing issue.

Parents, teachers, counselors, and politicians have stigmatized education. Students are

continuously told that an education is important. They are stuck in between what adults are

telling them and what they believe themselves. The motivation for gaining an education has

changed. Changes in technology have made students lose interest all together. Many students

struggle to understand concepts because the system seems too demanding. How useful is an

education if the student doesn’t see the point in learning the concepts? As these issues have

worsened, the call for reform has become more relevant. The major question is no longer

whether education needs to be reformed. Rather, it has shifted to how it needs to be reformed.

Major Debates and Commentary

Most people agree that the educational system in place is flawed. As Claudia Dreifus and

Andrew Hacker state in their article “Is College Worth the Price of Admission,” institutions have
 ​ ​Meads 4

lost their academic focus on engaging the minds of students. One of the major arguments against

education is that is doesn’t teach students how to creatively find solutions to problems.

Numerous people agree that the system needs to reform to include creativity at its center.

However, multiple sub-arguments have surfaced on how to accomplish this. ​On the other hand,

some opponents agree that the system is flawed, but they discourage reform. Rather, they give

other options that have already been implemented, but may not be as well known.

As generations have passed and technology has advanced, children are finding it harder

to focus in school. Robinson states that this is mainly because they are forced to leave a

stimulating world and expected to focus on boring work. As a result, many of them are being

medicated with ADD drugs to help them calm down and focus. Robinson calls this an anesthetic

experience, where “you shut your senses off.” According to him, this isn’t how children should

experience education. He states, “​We shouldn't be putting them asleep, we should be waking

them up to what they have inside of themselves.” In other words, a student shouldn’t be forced to

deaden their senses. Rather, they should be able to use them to accomplish their goals and learn

the skills that they need for their future. To accomplish this, Robinson emphasizes the need for

divergent thinking and aesthetic experiences to engage students in the classroom.

An aesthetic experience is when a person uses their senses rather than suppressing them.

As Robinson puts it, “​An aesthetic experience is one in which your senses are operating at their

peak. When you are present in the current moment. When you are resonating with the excitement

of this thing that you're experiencing.” In other words, it is when a person is operating at their

fullest capacity. These types of experiences put meaning back into learning. Therefore, Robinson
 ​ ​Meads 5

concludes that students have more of a desire to learn because creativity is at the center of

classroom instruction.

Robinson argues that the educational system in place is too linear, meaning students are

only taught to find one solution to problems. He states that this type of thinking needs to shift to

divergent thinking, which is defined as the “ability to see lots of possible answers to a question”

and “lots of possible ways of interpreting a question.” In other words, this kind of thinking

allows students to creatively find solutions to problems that have multiple answers and ways to

approach them. In the article “Teaching Creativity in Higher Education,” author Larry

Livingston states that the working world requires creative thinking. Therefore, students are more

equipped for the future as they implement divergent thinking into their learning.

Another solution presented is focusing on collaboration in the classroom. Collaboration is

at the heart of modern culture, but is rarely seen in the educational system. Larry Livingston

states, “Although jobs will change, diverge, and morph, employers are more and more going to

seek workers who are adept at teamwork and capable of contributing original thought to group

assignments and tasks.” In other words, collaboration and creative thinking are one key aspect to

having a successful career. Incorporating more teamwork into the educational system allows

students to prepare for a better future. Salman Khan supports Livingston’s claims in his article

“What College Could Be Like.” Both authors conclude that the best way to incorporate

collaboration into the classroom is by eliminating lectures and instead allowing students to

support each other and experience more of the outside world.

Others argue that the system needs to reform to include more hands on training. The

current educational structure is centered around lectures that help students become more book
 ​ ​Meads 6

smart. However, they are not being taught the necessary skills that they need in the working

world. Salman Khan argues that the educational system needs to reform to be flexible enough to

allow students to experience co-ops, meaning that classroom instruction is combined with real

world application. Khan states that students who experience this method “see the real-world

projects as being more intellectually challenging and open-ended than the somewhat artificial

projects given in classrooms.” In the article “Blue Collar Brilliance,” author Mike Rose further

supports this claim by stating, “A significant amount of teaching, often informal and indirect,

takes place at work.” In other words, experience in the real world can help students meaningfully

develop skills that they need in their desired career.

In addition to changing how students learn, Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker argue

that institutions need to change specific traditions to improve teacher instruction. One major

point they make is ending tenure, a guaranteed position at a school. They state, “​Professors who

possess it have no reason to improve their teaching, take on introductory courses, or, in fact,

accept any tasks not to their liking.” In other words, there is no certainty that students are

receiving the best instruction possible because of tenure. Hacker and Dreifus state that

instruction will improve as teachers are forced to prove themselves. Until then, the authors

believe that an online education may be a better course to take.

Although arguments have surfaced on how to change education, nothing has been

implemented. Hacker and Dreifus state that until the system has improved, online learning can

help students learn at a better capacity. They state, “​Unlike a textbook, software can pose

interactive questions, review answers, and tell students to try again, offering hints on where they
 ​ ​Meads 7

may have gone wrong.” In other words, online learning can help students understand where they

need to improve in an environment that they are comfortable with.

While most opponents suggest reforming the educational curriculum to put creativity at

the center, Charles Murray, in his article “Are Too Many People Going to College,” argues

against this proposal. Rather, he believes that the Enlightenment based core curriculum is vital to

a student’s success. He states, “​The educational establishment sees this kind of curriculum as one

that forces children to memorize boring facts. That conventional wisdom is wrong on every

count.” Livingston’s assertion is that the material learned in school can be captivating rather than

boring.​ However, he argues that the system is too demanding and needs to be reformed to make

it less impossible for students to achieve.

The present system makes it difficult for people with low intelligence to succeed. In the

article “Two Years Are Better Than Four,” author Liz Addison states that a four year University

or “University of Privilege,” as Addison puts it, requires applicants to have academic ability

before they begin college. Addison argues that this make it difficult for students who never had

the opportunity to succeed in school. However, she does not call for the system to be reformed.

Instead, she offers the option of community colleges. This option allows students to experience

“self discovery” and find a successful career without having to restructure the system.

The educational system can be reformed to put creativity at its center using multiple

methods. Each author has sound arguments for or against each option. While some believe that

the curriculum needs to change, others argue that changing instruction is key. Some argue that

the system doesn’t need to reform at all. Rather, they offer the option of community colleges and
 ​ ​Meads 8

online learning. Until more research has been conducted, the question still remains on how to

best reform the system.

Areas of Further Inquiry

While the debate continues, certain questions need to be addressed before a new system

is enforced: where is the system going to be implemented, who is going to implement it, and how

is it going to be funded? There are various institutions widespread including both public and

private schools. Is every school, regardless of what type, required to implement this new

structure? If this is the goal in mind, what is the best way to enforce a standardized system across

institutions when every school is run differently? In addition, should the implementation of a

new system be left up to the national, state, or local government? To understand how a solution

can be reached, a reader must first understand the different types of educational systems, who

runs them, and where the funding comes from.

Reforming public school systems would primarily be accomplished through the national

government. While each state has the ability to change aspects of their school systems, they are

required to follow certain rules enforced by the national government. Approximately 10 percent

of the national budget is comprised of funds for the educational system. Public school systems

are given part of this funding if there is evidence that they are complying with national standards.

Therefore, public schools would have to comply with national changes to the educational system

in order to receive funding.

On the other hand, reforming the educational system within charter and independent

schools would have to be done by the proprietor of the school. These institutions are run by

private organizations or parents. ​In the article “How Are Local, State, and Federal Governments
 ​ ​Meads 9

Involved in Education? Is This Involvement Just,” ​The Center for Public Justice states, “After

receiving approval, charter schools are freed from many government regulations and may adopt

their own curriculum, operating processes, and pedagogy.” In other words, charter and

independent schools are not bound to government rules regarding education. The only stipulation

is that they must have sufficient success rates. Therefore, changes made to the system by the

national government would have little effect on these schools.

Even if a solution was reached regarding where and how the system would be

implemented, the question remains on how the reform would be funded. How much would a

reform cost? Where does federal funding end and state and local funding begin? People would

need to be employed to enforce a new system. Between paying employees and providing the

necessary resources needed, reforming education may be an expensive endeavor. In addition,

every school has supplies and resources that fit the current educational system. If the focus shifts,

the resources they need will expand beyond the existing parameter. Instructors would have to be

trained on how to approach this new system. All of this requires funding.

Each type of educational system is operated differently. Charter and independent schools

are not bound by the same rules as public schools are. If the goal in reforming education is to

implement a new structure, what needs to be done to get every school on the same page? How do

we bridge the gap between charter and public schools? How is the reform going to be funded?

Before a new structure is decided on, these questions need to be considered.

The educational system is becoming more problematic. Students are finding it harder to

succeed not only in school, but also in the working world. A solution to this problem is yet to be
 ​ ​Meads 10

reached as people continue to argue their side. Perhaps they will find a solution that bridges the

gaps between systems and allows students to learn in an engaging environment.

Works Cited

Addison, Liz. ​Two Years Are Better Than Four

Bristow, William, "Enlightenment", ​The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017

Edition)​,

Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Hacker, Andrew and Claudia Dreifus. "Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?" ​The

Chronicle of Higher Education.​ N.p., 11 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

“How Are Local, State, and Federal Governments Involved in Education? Is This Involvement

Just?” Center for Public Justice

Khan, Salman. “What College Could Be Like.” ​Communication of the ACM​, vol. 56, no. 1, Jan.

2013.

Livingston, Larry. ​Teaching Creativity in Higher Education.​ Routledge, 2010.

Murray, Charles. ​Are Too Many People Going to College.​ Crown Forum.

Robinson, Sir Ken. ​Changing Education Paradigms.​ ​YouTube,​ YouTube, 14 Oct. 2010.

Rose, Mike. “Blue Collar Brilliance.” ​Actively Learn​.