Blow the whole thing up and start from scratch! (Or not)

The February 1 New York Times includes an op-ed by Williams College lecturer Susan Engel, in which she explains that ”Our current educational approach — and the testing that is driving it — is completely at odds with what scientists understand about how children develop during the elementary school years….”

Engel proposes that instead of revising our current federal education law we start with the end in mind, considering

…what should children be able to do by age 12, or the time they leave elementary school? They should be able to read a chapter book, write a story and a compelling essay; know how to add, subtract, divide and multiply numbers; detect patterns in complex phenomena; use evidence to support an opinion; be part of a group of people who are not their family; and engage in an exchange of ideas in conversation. If all elementary school students mastered these abilities, they would be prepared to learn almost anything in high school and college.”

She goes on to describe what a child’s classroom might look like if we followed this path:

Imagine, for instance, a third-grade classroom that was free of the laundry list of goals currently harnessing our teachers and students, and that was devoted instead to just a few narrowly defined and deeply focused goals. In this classroom, children would spend two hours each day hearing stories read aloud, reading aloud themselves, telling stories to one another and reading on their own…. Children would also spend an hour a day writing things that have actual meaning to them — stories, newspaper articles, captions for cartoons, letters to one another…. [C]hildren would also spend a short period of time each day practicing computation — adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Once children are proficient in those basics they would be free to turn to other activities that are equally essential for math and science: devising original experiments, observing the natural world and counting things, whether they be words, events or people. These are all activities children naturally love, if given a chance to do them in a genuine way.”

(The op-ed includes a rationale for this design, so I encourage you to read the entire piece–it’s a quick read at only 800 words.)

I was left pondering whether or not this would be the ideal thing for children. On one hand, it sounds just like how I learn right now–through discovery. I might hear about an interesting documentary while talking with a friend, order it through Netflix, pause it a few times while watching to investigate a specific person or event on Wikipedia, then buy a book that allows me to delve deeper into the subject. And I usually will retain much of what I watch/read because I am interested in the topic and chose to pursue it. However, my elementary school education had a traditional structure and curriculum that did not include  much choice and was not driven by student interests. So there’s a part of me that thinks my early, traditional education may have played a part in getting me to where I am today–a voracious reader who is intellectually curious and understands and enjoys the process of learning.

Engel writes that “if we want to make sure all children learn, we will need to overhaul the curriculum itself,” and that the curriculum currently in place is “strangling children and teachers alike.” But as I noted in my February 3 post about the socioeconomic achievement gap, some solid research shows that schools help children achieve at about the same rate when in school; factors outside of the school building and school year seem to account for many students falling behind. A case can be made that these external factors strangle the ability of teachers to fully implement the curriculum and make sure all children learn.

What’s your take? Is Engel’s educational plan something you’d like your own children or grandchildren to experience? Do you think parents would respond if a national charter school network was designed around this model? Or are we blaming schools for not getting it right when in fact the current model works but other factors (I’m thinking primarily of poverty) are holding students back?