Stephen Kershnar
Rethink
the Curriculum
Dunkirk-Fredonia
Observer
March
29, 2021
For decades, the curriculum in
American middle and high schools has remained the same. It should be revised.
The curriculum in public high
schools is a serious matter because it is funded through state coercion and
because the taxpayers pay through the nose for it. When you hold a gun to
someone’s head to make him pay for something and then charge him an arm and a
leg, the money should be well spent.
Consider
the cost of public-school education in New York. The Empire Center’s E. J.
McMahon points out that in 2017-2018, relative to personal income, the state
spent an eye-popping $51 per $1,000, second only to Alaska. That year, the
state spent an incredible $24,000 per pupil per year, easily the highest in the
country. No other state spent more than $21,000 and only two topped $20,000. New
York City spent a whopping $27,000 per pupil, by far the most among the
country’s 1,000 largest school systems.
University
of Colorado philosopher Michael Huemer argues that there should be test for
when a subject is offered. Here is my three-part test – a variant on his - for
whether a public school should offer a subject. A subject should be offered
only if it is (1) practically useful, (2) important to understand the world, or
(3) necessary to preserve freedom or the American way of life.
First,
consider classes that are required and should not be. Huemer argues that foreign
language does not satisfy the criteria. Even if it were practically useful, and
it is not, it is so ineffectually taught that it probably should be dropped
from the curriculum altogether. Kate Palmer at YouGov notes that in 2013, only
25% of Americans spoke a foreign language. Given that 14% of Americans are
immigrants, foreign-language instruction accomplishes little. Foreign language –
with the possible exception of Latin - should probably not even be taught as an
elective.
Gym
is neither central to understanding the world nor necessary to preserve
American freedom. It does not require thirteen academic years to figure out how
to exercise. Many students participate in school sports and large numbers of adults
figure out how to exercise on their own. Even if getting students in shape were
practically useful, schools fail at it so miserably that it should be removed
entirely from the curriculum. Writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, Gretchen
Brown points out that 27% of American young people are ineligible to join the
military because of obesity and another 37% are ineligible due to other health
problems, such as asthma or joint problems.
Art,
home economics, and vocational education fail the three-part test, although the
more flexible requirement regarding them – for example, you need take only one
of them – makes any requirement less wasteful. The art requirement is poorly
thought out in that studying fine arts (drawing, filmmaking, playing an
instrument, pottery, etc.) is less important to understanding the world than
studying art’s great masters. Consider, for example, Bach, Michelangelo, Rembrandt,
and Martin Scorsese. Studying the great masters in K-12 should be taught, if it
is taught at all, through classes in the history of art, film, and music.
Social
studies – in cases in which it is distinct from classes on history or American
government and law (for example, the Constitution) – likely also fails the
three-part test, although it is a closer call.
Second,
certain subjects should be required. Consider math. If certain topics in math –
for example, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics - are practically
important or central to understanding our world, then there should not be a loosely
structured requirement that students take a math class but no class in
particular. Instead, all students should be required to take particular math
topics and likely to take them in a particular order. It is mystifying how it
could be crucially important to one’s education to take math, but any old math-topic
will do. This is even stranger at the university level. A similar thing is true
of science. If it is central to understanding our world to understand biology,
chemistry, and physics, then these classes should be required as should the
order in which they are taken.
Third,
certain additional subjects should be required. Consider finance and investing.
Given the importance of finance to Americans’ well-being these days, no one can
reasonably argue that classes in cooking, pottery, or Spanish should be
prioritized over this subject. In terms of protecting American freedom, classes
on law – especially the Constitution – and economics should likely be required.
Kiplinger’s Craig Hawley
points out that less than one-third of American adults are financially literate
by age 40. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
Pennsylvania points out that 37% of Americans cannot
name any of First Amendment rights. Only 26% can name all three branches of
government. This is bad for Americans and bad for American freedom.
Subjects
that pass the three-part test are hard sciences, history, literature, math, and
writing. Eliminating subjects that fail the three-part test would have several
advantages. First, it would allow students to focus on more important topics.
For example, a student who takes a gym class instead of European history,
physics, or an additional writing class has lost a valuable opportunity.
Second,
eliminating these requirements would allow the school day (or year) to be
shortened. This would pay dividends as it would allow students to work at jobs,
thereby picking up valuable work habits, and reduce antipathy toward school. A
2020 Yale study found that roughly 75% of students have negative feelings toward school.
A shortened school day might lessen this number. Reducing the number of
administrators, staff, and teachers would put the brakes on public schools’ skyrocketing
costs.
Third, making these
changes would help schools focus on their core mission. Schools provide so many
diverse services (for example, athletic teams, daycare, free food, and mental
health services) and subjects that they have lost their way. A renewed focus
would help.
