The Dutch government started a campaign to improve the Dutch education system: "onderwijs2032". It's a nice chance to write down some ideas that were crawling around in the back of my head, and it's also nice to know that some of them might be actually used. Or at least considered to be used.
The text below is mainly about the secondary education system VWO (preparatory scientific education), except for the last paragraph, which is about Dutch education in general.
The text below is mainly about the secondary education system VWO (preparatory scientific education), except for the last paragraph, which is about Dutch education in general.
LONGER CLASSES
In the current system, high school students get 1-hour classes and move from classroom to classroom up to 8 times a day. This is inefficient, as time is wasted by walking, installing yourself and your books at your seat, and trying to get into the right mindset. I would suggest to have only 2 subjects per day. This allows students to dig deeper into the subject, and gives teachers more freedom to switch between passive and active teaching methods.
Additionally, students usually receive an unreasonable high amount of assignments for the next day, which might be reduced with only 2 subjects per day. I have noticed that teachers overestimate the amount of time students have after school, or underestimate the time required for the assignments they give the students. Or perhaps they know it's too much, but have to give them so much in order to reach certain 'teaching' quota. Whatever the reason, the 8-fold work load causes over-working and sleep deprivation, or a lack of understanding for courses entirely revolved around doing assignments. I have noticed both happening to me and my former fellow students. For this reason I think it is valuable to only have 2 subjects each day, to reduce workload after school.
And if this isn't enough, there should be some rule limiting the mandatory home work. Children should not have to work for more than 8 hours per day on school assignments. Time after school should be reserved for people that are slow, to catch up. Working 12 hours each day should not be the baseline.
Additionally, students usually receive an unreasonable high amount of assignments for the next day, which might be reduced with only 2 subjects per day. I have noticed that teachers overestimate the amount of time students have after school, or underestimate the time required for the assignments they give the students. Or perhaps they know it's too much, but have to give them so much in order to reach certain 'teaching' quota. Whatever the reason, the 8-fold work load causes over-working and sleep deprivation, or a lack of understanding for courses entirely revolved around doing assignments. I have noticed both happening to me and my former fellow students. For this reason I think it is valuable to only have 2 subjects each day, to reduce workload after school.
And if this isn't enough, there should be some rule limiting the mandatory home work. Children should not have to work for more than 8 hours per day on school assignments. Time after school should be reserved for people that are slow, to catch up. Working 12 hours each day should not be the baseline.
NO CULTURAL CLASSES
I do not despise culture. I am a great admirer of painted art, of stone reliefs and statues, and various music styles. And of course literature. However, I do not think that the cultural classes provided in the VWO contribute to a more cultural nation.
Musicians need to learn how to play, sure. Though this usually happens at special private musical schools, or at home, not at the high school. Visual artists are primarily trained at home, usually by themselves. And if they need outside help there is a lot of that on Youtube for free. Nevertheless, I would keep one or two classrooms available for creative purposes, for people that are short in means. In these classrooms children can try out different things, under supervision. It should not be mandatory, and after regular school hours. Apart from this there should be no more cultural courses (the Dutch names: drama, muziek, beeldende vorming, CKV, KCV). Writing stories or poetry should remain part of the language subjects, as it directly improves proficiency in those languages.
The only problem I can see is that a number of teachers will become jobless. But this cannot be a reason to continue with the time wasting classes. Instead, provide these people with government-funded re-schooling.
Musicians need to learn how to play, sure. Though this usually happens at special private musical schools, or at home, not at the high school. Visual artists are primarily trained at home, usually by themselves. And if they need outside help there is a lot of that on Youtube for free. Nevertheless, I would keep one or two classrooms available for creative purposes, for people that are short in means. In these classrooms children can try out different things, under supervision. It should not be mandatory, and after regular school hours. Apart from this there should be no more cultural courses (the Dutch names: drama, muziek, beeldende vorming, CKV, KCV). Writing stories or poetry should remain part of the language subjects, as it directly improves proficiency in those languages.
The only problem I can see is that a number of teachers will become jobless. But this cannot be a reason to continue with the time wasting classes. Instead, provide these people with government-funded re-schooling.
GYMNASTICS
Personally, I hated Gymnastics courses. I do not care one iota about soccer or basket ball or american football or whatever the sports teachers demanded us to do. Why would you need to learn these sports? There is no reason. The only reason why a sports course is valuable is because it demands physical exercise, and that is beneficial for your health. So let the children exercise, but let them choose what to do.
LANGUAGES
Dutch and English are the only languages that students need to be fluent in. Other languages like German, French, and Spanish are already a waste of time, and become increasingly wasteful. Most people either do not come into contact with foreigners, and most that do speak English with them. Some people might benefit from learning other foreign languages, sure, but one should look at the big picture. If it's a waste for most, than it's a waste. The few people that want to migrate, or study languages at the university can study a related language in their spare time.
Having said that, I do have an idea to make people generally more language-compatible. Latin and Ancient Greek are studied by a part of the students that are exceptionally good at learning, and I think learning about those languages is valuable. Only to a certain degree, though. Why are these languages handy? Firstly, because scientific terminology is usually derived from Latin or Ancient Greek in a fairly straight-forward manner. Secondly, knowledge of a mother language helps you learn daughter languages. Instead of Latin of Greek I therefore propose the class 'History of Language'. It will contain elements of Latin and Ancient Greek, but also various medieval languages that form the links between the modern languages and the classical (middle Dutch, middle English, Old Norse, Breton, Gothic, Yiddish). Also teach them about the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, the mother language to Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit. Make the students learn words and concepts, but do not try to make them fluent in those dead languages. The students have more important things to do.
Having said that, I do have an idea to make people generally more language-compatible. Latin and Ancient Greek are studied by a part of the students that are exceptionally good at learning, and I think learning about those languages is valuable. Only to a certain degree, though. Why are these languages handy? Firstly, because scientific terminology is usually derived from Latin or Ancient Greek in a fairly straight-forward manner. Secondly, knowledge of a mother language helps you learn daughter languages. Instead of Latin of Greek I therefore propose the class 'History of Language'. It will contain elements of Latin and Ancient Greek, but also various medieval languages that form the links between the modern languages and the classical (middle Dutch, middle English, Old Norse, Breton, Gothic, Yiddish). Also teach them about the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, the mother language to Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit. Make the students learn words and concepts, but do not try to make them fluent in those dead languages. The students have more important things to do.
ICT
Learning to work with computers is obvious, and many have already stated that children should also learn programming languages. I couldn't agree more. And put the focus on the internet. A great deal of our lives are already online, and that can only increase with time.
NATURE / SOCIETY
Current high school students have to decide between different profiles: culture and society, nature and health, economy and society, and nature and technique. The nature profiles are scientific, and the society profiles are less so. The people that want to become important decision makers would choose a society path, while I think that surely decision makers should have a good scientific understanding. See a RELATED POST. And I do not think that scientific people should have a reduced understanding of society. For they might also become advisors, or perhaps aspire to found a (technological) company. Furthermore, children at that age usually do not know that they want, or, because their brains are still very much developing, their desires might change in the course of some years. You should keep their options open; do not restrict them at that stage. Remove the profiles.
CLASS LIST
I propose that in the future VWO students have the following classses:
- Dutch Language
- English Language
- History of Language
- ICT
- ICT
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Mathematics
- History
- Geography
- Philosophy
I assume in this list that the 'nature' subjects: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are designed so that students have a clear idea about the practicability. Especially physics and mathematics can sometimes become quite 'academic', very disconnected with reality. Some courses ('Algemene natuurwetenschappen' and 'Natuur, leven en technologie') are designed to link the subjects with applications, but I do not like the idea of additional courses. With different courses you have different teachers, different classrooms, different books. Such a separate course may have been handy to test for it's usefulness. If that test succeeded, I suggest to integrate it with the main courses.
This list is compatible with the 2-course-a-day idea. Philosophy and ICT are smaller courses, as perhaps History of language is too. 8 full courses + 3 small courses = more or less 10 full courses.
NO RELIGION
Finally I want to address the obvious flaw in our education system in general: the presence of religious teachings. I wholeheartedly advocate the mandatory secularization of all religious educational institutions. It's the 21st century for goodness' sake!
Let me be clear: I want children to have free, inquiring, critical minds. These minds are the most adaptive because they are the most in touch with reality, and so these have the highest chance of succeeding in life. In general religious teachings increase susceptibility to quackery and aversion towards the scientific.
People are allowed to believe whatever they want. That's the whole point, because religious primary schools do not promote freedom of thinking in children, but limit them to the religious affiliation of their parents. Parents are also allowed to teach their children whatever they want. And are allowed to send them to the church, mosque, or whatever brainwashing place they want to send them. But please offer them some freedom, and provide secular primary education to all. Think about integration. Think about blunting of strong ideologies. When the children make contact with people outside of their parents religious circle, they will become better people. More tolerant.
Something about the law: the Dutch law is supposed to defend religious schools. I dare to disagree. The article 23 of the constitution clearly speaks about equal standards, about good education for all. Whether special or public education. The 'inspectie van het onderwijs' checks whether schools provide good education, and may punish the school when the national standard is not met. Still, religious subjects are not banned by this authority. Obviously, teaching children that angels and devils exist, or that people after their death will go to a place of fire and eternal suffering, is on equal footing with teaching them that lightning is created by a dwarven-forged hammer, that age-related death is inflicted by a bearded man with a scythe, and that newborns are delivered by storks. Yes, everybody is allowed to create an educational institutions. But that does not mean there's unlimited freedom. It never did. Religious education fails the quality criteria, and should not be allowed to exist any longer.
Secondly, article 6 of the constitution clearly demands freedom of religion, beliefs, convictions. To preserve this freedom, we cannot allow parents to send their children to a religious school. Christian parents send their children to a Christian school. Muslims send their offspring to a Islamic school. Et cetera. It's never a choice of the children. And that's because they cannot make that choice when they are 4 years old.
Finally I want to state that if it is morality you are concerned for, think about all the cases of immorality by the most religious people around. The protestant parents denying their children medical access, Catholic priests raping young boys, the civil war in Israel, the assault on the world trade centre and other locations in the western world, et cetera. These immoral acts do not exist despite the religious belief, but because of it. Morality is a subject of philosophy and neurology. Teach children some basic elements of these scientific subjects. Give them thought games, so that moral rules are based on calculations of the children themselves, and not because the teacher says so. And show them that the world is not divided in good versus evil. And that death is not a punishment to the person that dies, but to the friends and family of that person. Things like that. Give them the tools so that they may make good moral decisions themselves in the future.
For the sake of the children I demand secularization.
Let me be clear: I want children to have free, inquiring, critical minds. These minds are the most adaptive because they are the most in touch with reality, and so these have the highest chance of succeeding in life. In general religious teachings increase susceptibility to quackery and aversion towards the scientific.
People are allowed to believe whatever they want. That's the whole point, because religious primary schools do not promote freedom of thinking in children, but limit them to the religious affiliation of their parents. Parents are also allowed to teach their children whatever they want. And are allowed to send them to the church, mosque, or whatever brainwashing place they want to send them. But please offer them some freedom, and provide secular primary education to all. Think about integration. Think about blunting of strong ideologies. When the children make contact with people outside of their parents religious circle, they will become better people. More tolerant.
Something about the law: the Dutch law is supposed to defend religious schools. I dare to disagree. The article 23 of the constitution clearly speaks about equal standards, about good education for all. Whether special or public education. The 'inspectie van het onderwijs' checks whether schools provide good education, and may punish the school when the national standard is not met. Still, religious subjects are not banned by this authority. Obviously, teaching children that angels and devils exist, or that people after their death will go to a place of fire and eternal suffering, is on equal footing with teaching them that lightning is created by a dwarven-forged hammer, that age-related death is inflicted by a bearded man with a scythe, and that newborns are delivered by storks. Yes, everybody is allowed to create an educational institutions. But that does not mean there's unlimited freedom. It never did. Religious education fails the quality criteria, and should not be allowed to exist any longer.
Secondly, article 6 of the constitution clearly demands freedom of religion, beliefs, convictions. To preserve this freedom, we cannot allow parents to send their children to a religious school. Christian parents send their children to a Christian school. Muslims send their offspring to a Islamic school. Et cetera. It's never a choice of the children. And that's because they cannot make that choice when they are 4 years old.
Finally I want to state that if it is morality you are concerned for, think about all the cases of immorality by the most religious people around. The protestant parents denying their children medical access, Catholic priests raping young boys, the civil war in Israel, the assault on the world trade centre and other locations in the western world, et cetera. These immoral acts do not exist despite the religious belief, but because of it. Morality is a subject of philosophy and neurology. Teach children some basic elements of these scientific subjects. Give them thought games, so that moral rules are based on calculations of the children themselves, and not because the teacher says so. And show them that the world is not divided in good versus evil. And that death is not a punishment to the person that dies, but to the friends and family of that person. Things like that. Give them the tools so that they may make good moral decisions themselves in the future.
For the sake of the children I demand secularization.
No comments:
Post a Comment