According to many evaluations, education at the elementary and secondary levels is faulty. Every year, students arrive at the university knowing less, which makes it necessary to lower the level at the university or use desperate remedies, such as the implementation of level zero courses.
On the other hand, textbook publishers sometimes launch a race. Secondary education is supposed to provide students with general, non-specialized training. However, in some subjects, such as chemistry and biology, students may be made to learn questions or solve problems that should be encountered in college, several years later. It seems a contradiction that they are forced to learn more, but actually get out knowing less.
As a justification
for the increase in content, it is sometimes asserted that scientific knowledge increases,
therefore learning should be increased at the lower levels, to make room for new
advances that will have to be dealt with in the university. Perhaps this could
be applied, to some extent, to biology, but in other sciences there have been
no revolutions similar to genetic engineering. It obviously does not apply to
mathematics, where recent advances are of interest to specialists, but beyond
the reach of the average citizen.
Speaking
about mathematics, it must be noted that the introduction of set theory and
Boolean algebra at the lowest levels of education was a blunder, comparable to
the introduction of transformational linguistics in elementary language
teaching. Not every age has the same capacity. When I studied set theory at seventeen,
it was explained to me in a couple of hours and I had no problem to understand
it. At that age it is trivial, but a six-year-old child cannot grasp it, whatever
some educators say.
One of the
failures of education is the long time elapsing from the moment a scientific
simplification is introduced until it reaches the lowest levels.
Simplifications facilitate learning and leave room for new advances. The
introduction of the decimal metric system, for instance, removed unnecessary
burdens from teaching. Let us look at a personal example of this inertia:
Prototype meter between 1889 and 1960 |
When I was
studying, one of the main difficulties in the last years of high school was
caused by the existence in physics of three systems of measurements and the need
to make conversions between them: MKS (based on meter-kilogram-second), CGS (centimeter-gram-second)
and Technical or Terrestrial (with strange units, like the kilogram-force
or kilopond). In the sixties, all three systems were officially replaced by the International
System of Units (SI). However, decades later, the old systems were still being
taught.
By the way, when
will the United States adopt the SI? Just three countries are still using old
measurement systems (Burma and Liberia are the other two). This discrepancy has
caused important losses to the U.S., as when the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed against
Mars because American units of distance had been mixed with SI units, which
should be the only ones used in science.
Primary education
should be really basic: in mathematics, the four rules, a little geometry, fractions
and the rule of three; in physics, the elementary concepts of movement; in
chemistry, non-traditional nomenclatures should not be taught, even though they
are internationally accepted; more attention can be devoted to biology, without
going too deep.
Who is guilty?
Probably everybody. Publishers, who sometimes launch a war for the market, the most
worrying symptom being the publication of increasingly cumbersome books. Teachers,
who let themselves be dragged into this war, and choose precisely the most cumbersome
books. Public authorities, who let this happen. Maximum contents should be established
for every subject, not just minimum.
Thematic Thread about Science in General: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment