The post Do You Believe in Algebra? brought up issues I've put some consideration into before. One being the relevance of material taught in school and another is the idea of shifting towards a more personalized educational system versus the current standards-based. Continually presented with new perspectives, my beliefs on these topics have juggled back and forth.

Reading these words by Karl Fisch sends me back in time to the feelings I had about most of the material covered in high school, "...do you believe that all students (scratch, that, all people) need to know "there is a complex number i such that i² = -1," . Really though, why would you need to learn something you know you'll never use? With this notion I had absolutely no interest in learning what was being taught in school. No urge to apply myself resulted in bad grades and falling behind diminishing my academic motivation even more, a vicious cycle. Then College happened. I heard numerous times how great Okemos high school was and the advantage for College it provided over all other schools. "Toot your own horn to someone else" I thought, of course every school is going to brag about how amazing they are. Just in my first semester at MSU I realized they weren't lying! Bunched in with kids all over the nation I could now see this "advantage" they were talking about. It wasn't that the material being taught was something I had covered before, but rather the skills and habits  I developed from attending Okemos. Here at MSU I knew just as much on the topic as the kid sitting next to me, but my organizational and writing skills made it easier for me to whip out the paper. The problem presented was new to every student, yet my problem solving strategies proved to be most efficient. It all made sense now. The topics, problems, and material learned weren't the advantage, it was my ability to successfully comprehend and internalize those topics, problems, and material. A skill that can be carried over to many different aspects. Going off to College also forced the realization that my these skills learned in school weren't only applicable in further education, but to the outside world as well. No longer living under the blanket of my parents support I inherited other problems requiring a smart solution. Though the solutions called for other options not dealing with numbers and equations like a math problem, the process of resolving the matter was in essence the same.

The road of life constantly presents challenges that must be conquered in order to move ahead. School, the preparation for life, is a controlled environment of constant challenges to conquer before moving on. Just as in real life we don't choose the challenges we encounter, school needs to challenge us with problems we may feel apprehensive or unnecessary to solve.

So if school is designed to help us constantly progress in life by developing our ability to overcome the difficulties handed to us, how should this ability be assessed? Is it by time, the first one done is the best? The well known story of tortoise vs. the hare has taught us the lesson that speed doesn't always prevail. Yet advancement through the current school system is defined by completion of the material within the standard time period an "average" student that age would. Unable to master the skills within that period and you're left behind; doesn't seem fair. Ideally, there would be a system where a student can move at his/her own pace ensuring a good understanding of the material before moving on to the next. When covering a subject the student excels in he/she wouldn't have to go at a slower rate consequently losing interest, and in the weaker areas he/she would be able to take the time to truly grasp the concepts without penalty. Sounds perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Implementing a school system like this would be near impossible to regulate. The effort required by a teacher to attend to all the different levels/material of each individual student is too much to ask....but wait, this is already an issue with the current system.

When a teacher sees his/her class as a whole instead of the individual students that make it up, it automatically sets up for a standards-based system regardless the design of the curriculum. Even with the current system, teaching by accommodating to each students abilities will naturally employ a more personalized approach. Having used the same structure as when schools were first developed it will be a long and difficult process to change. So maybe our focus first needs to be on expanding to a more effective staff in the existing system. This isn't necessarily a question in quality of existing staff members, but increasing the staff-student ratio allowing for more personalized attention to the students. Any suggestions I would have to accomplish this would be weak with a lack of knowledge in the area, but making a job in the school system more appealing is the goal.

Do I question the effectiveness in the current school system? Yes and no. Regarding the material being taught I feel it's the how and not the what. A more relative and applicable curriculum could definitely result in more participation amongst the students but it's the skill of learning itself and ability to solve problems that's important. As far as shifting towards a personalized system versus the standards-based there are obvious benefits. Due to the difficulty of tearing down and reconstructing what has always been, attempts toward expanding schools staff is a good first step in development of a personalized system.