Teenagers in modern America are almost completely worthless. Here's what they are good for economically:
1) stimulating consumer demand by forcing parents to buy them plastic crap
2) exposing their parents to new technology
3) playing sports for parents to blindly cheer
... and that's about it. Maybe when they're 20 they'll be able to do something, but our civilization basically takes teenagers, drops them in a padded cell for about eight years, and does nothing but force mindless repetitive memorization upon them.
I think one of the great untapped resources of education are the students themselves. Need to teach a fifth grader about whatever it is they make a fifth grader memorize (disclaimer: I am not an education professional)? How about a sixth grader? They just learned it.
Schools have a real problem rewarding academic achievement. What does school reward effectively?
Athletic prowess.
No, this isn't going to be a screed against dumping football from high schools. No, instead, let's look at how sports work and reward athletes. Hint: it's about mentorship.
Does the coach of a team teach every single athlete every single thing about their sport? Hell no. I'd completely unscientifically guess that 75% of sports skills is learned by mimicking and following the better athletes of team, and practicing those skills with an against them. Sports are still heavily organically learned via practice and game situations.
And athletes inevitably look up to the athletes only a grade or two better than them. Or even if they are younger or the same age, if they are better. Why? Because being around them makes them better.
So if after every year, you have educated an entire class (well, based on what I see in modern academia, maybe 50% at best) with an entire year's knowledge, then you send them off to the next grade. Also, there is almost zero skill development in curricula, especially in teach-to-the-test curricula.
Seems like a waste to me. Hey, how do people really learn things? By being exposed to it, and then using it in some way. Problem with 90% of high school knowledge is that it isn't particularly applicable immediately.
Oh, but what if older students could be given a system and structure to teach this knowledge to younger students? You don't really learn something really well until you teach it to someone else.
A systematic process of using teenagers (the better ones) to teach people a grade or two younger would provide a lot of benefits:
1) Provides a leadership function to those with academic prowess
2) Helps provide socialization development and interaction skills both for the mentors/tutors and their students
3) Helps create community among students and grades
4) It's cheap, virtually free labor
5) it strengthens knowledge in the teachers and students
6) provides another source of learning besides droning adults
7) provides roles and responsibilities to teenagers who really have little other value to society in terms of labor and expertise
8) Hopefully provides peer social status to academic achievement
You don't even need the best-of-the-best-of-the-best to do this. I'd guess the top 20-40% of a grade one to three levels ahead (12th teaches 10th or 9th or 8th grades) could provide effective teaching.
I think this would be especially effective in inner city schools. These schools often feature economically stressed families that usually rely on community support anyway, and not a lot of structure or reward for teenagers. Look at what gangs provide teenagers in these communities: a place, responsiblity, and often a position of mentorship for other teenagers. Unfortunately, all those laudable roles are devoted to criminal enterprises.
But drug gangs show that teenagers are willing, proud, and capable to do such things. Let's copy what works, folks.
1) stimulating consumer demand by forcing parents to buy them plastic crap
2) exposing their parents to new technology
3) playing sports for parents to blindly cheer
... and that's about it. Maybe when they're 20 they'll be able to do something, but our civilization basically takes teenagers, drops them in a padded cell for about eight years, and does nothing but force mindless repetitive memorization upon them.
I think one of the great untapped resources of education are the students themselves. Need to teach a fifth grader about whatever it is they make a fifth grader memorize (disclaimer: I am not an education professional)? How about a sixth grader? They just learned it.
Schools have a real problem rewarding academic achievement. What does school reward effectively?
Athletic prowess.
No, this isn't going to be a screed against dumping football from high schools. No, instead, let's look at how sports work and reward athletes. Hint: it's about mentorship.
Does the coach of a team teach every single athlete every single thing about their sport? Hell no. I'd completely unscientifically guess that 75% of sports skills is learned by mimicking and following the better athletes of team, and practicing those skills with an against them. Sports are still heavily organically learned via practice and game situations.
And athletes inevitably look up to the athletes only a grade or two better than them. Or even if they are younger or the same age, if they are better. Why? Because being around them makes them better.
So if after every year, you have educated an entire class (well, based on what I see in modern academia, maybe 50% at best) with an entire year's knowledge, then you send them off to the next grade. Also, there is almost zero skill development in curricula, especially in teach-to-the-test curricula.
Seems like a waste to me. Hey, how do people really learn things? By being exposed to it, and then using it in some way. Problem with 90% of high school knowledge is that it isn't particularly applicable immediately.
Oh, but what if older students could be given a system and structure to teach this knowledge to younger students? You don't really learn something really well until you teach it to someone else.
A systematic process of using teenagers (the better ones) to teach people a grade or two younger would provide a lot of benefits:
1) Provides a leadership function to those with academic prowess
2) Helps provide socialization development and interaction skills both for the mentors/tutors and their students
3) Helps create community among students and grades
4) It's cheap, virtually free labor
5) it strengthens knowledge in the teachers and students
6) provides another source of learning besides droning adults
7) provides roles and responsibilities to teenagers who really have little other value to society in terms of labor and expertise
8) Hopefully provides peer social status to academic achievement
You don't even need the best-of-the-best-of-the-best to do this. I'd guess the top 20-40% of a grade one to three levels ahead (12th teaches 10th or 9th or 8th grades) could provide effective teaching.
I think this would be especially effective in inner city schools. These schools often feature economically stressed families that usually rely on community support anyway, and not a lot of structure or reward for teenagers. Look at what gangs provide teenagers in these communities: a place, responsiblity, and often a position of mentorship for other teenagers. Unfortunately, all those laudable roles are devoted to criminal enterprises.
But drug gangs show that teenagers are willing, proud, and capable to do such things. Let's copy what works, folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment