The future of civilization is continually molded by the education of today. The learning experience, whether in mandatory K to 12 schooling or higher education, influences all who come into contact with it. Whether this is good or bad depends on how we teach. In this article, I explore what I believe are some issues facing the average American educational institution and propose an idea for a possible step in the right direction. While I am only snorkeling in the shallows of what is a vast sea, I hope that whatever insight I may have is of some use.
School is not about learning, at least not now. I do not mean that schools have given up their job, but that schools, despite the good efforts of many educators, currently have widespread counterproductive tendencies. Enter the mind of a curious-minded high-achieving high school student, who we will call “Larry”: Larry loves to learn, has a particular love of history, and naturally, he is excited after enrolling in a college-level history class. The standard history classes were tailored towards a general audience, but now Larry will be in class with like-minded students with a similar passion for the subject. At least, that is what he thinks: after all, this is the highest program the school system currently has to offer him. Instead, he quickly finds himself somewhat of an outcast, as most of his classmates are there primarily for the college credit and, generally speaking, have no particular interest in the subject. He soon learns his job: figure out what the teacher and/or curriculum asks of him, and give it to them. Larry finds this easy enough, but over time he feels that his curiosity becomes stunted instead of nurtured. His teacher has some broad opinions about the subject, presented as fact, that students are to treat as fact. Larry does some non-school-related research in his leisure, and in doing so, he is shocked to find that some of the views that he was taught do not hold up to scrutiny. He has an upcoming test, and it dawns on him that if he desires a good grade, then he will have to lie, seeing as he cannot believe the “correct” answer to be true. In this case, independent learning may actually put him at a disadvantage on the test, if anything. Larry wonders what went wrong.
While this is a rather particular case (a composite of several experiences of my own, in high school and university), it illuminates what I believe is a central issue. High-achieving students do not have to master their subject: all they need to do is identify what the teacher wants them to know in order to regurgitate it on assignments and tests. While not all teachers force students to adhere to their particular views (though it happens very often), it stands that the goal of today’s student is not to truly learn the subject but to learn to shapeshift to get a good grade from the teacher. While part of this depends on the teacher or curriculum, I would like to suggest a small (yet radical) widespread principle that could have a massive impact on the minds of students: allowing students to, on assignments or tests, challenge what was taught. For example, one could provide a different answer than expected or challenge premises implicit or stated in the assignment. If a student believes that their expected response is not representative of the truth, then instead of answering it that way, they can argue their own perspective instead. This would appear to be a recipe for chaos, but not if done properly. If a student attempts this, it is their responsibility to back themself with adequate, defensible reason, and/or evidence. When one does this, their grade now hangs on the defense. If the defense fails, the teacher will explain what is wrong with it and give them a poor grade in proportion with their folly. In other words, if the student is incorrect, then it will be no problem, but their own, and the teacher will be able to correct them. After all, if the teacher is proficient in the subject then they should be capable of handling pushback from amateurs. It is part of the job. On the other hand, if the amateur provides a challenge or alternative answer that is truly unassailable, then they will be graded on how well they defend their claim. It should go without stating that, when grading, teachers should not penalize the rest of an obedient class if one of their peers successfully challenges the material.
This principle would change the way students approach subject matter: no longer would passionate pupils feel the need to shut off their minds in order to succeed. While it is hard to imagine it coming into action except in very particular situations (in some subjects more than others), it sends a clear message to students: “We will not punish you for seeking the truth”. When students know that, they will feel confident to learn because they know that they are being graded on intellectual capability. As inconsequential as it may seem, the absence of this principle means that, even if the material taught is as objective as can be, the factual correctness of the student’s response is ultimately arbitrary, the sole criteria being its having been taught in class. On the other hand, the presence of this principle tells our students that success in life does not need to come by blind conformity, but can be achieved through trailblazing. In the real world, it is more often than not the latter.