I think there are more things worth knowing than can be included in a high school, or college, syllabus. Economics should be available for those that want to learn it. I don't believe in having a body of things that all kids are supposed to learn. The extreme version of my approach is unschooling, which we used for our kids.
I was very fortunate in that my high school had what amounted to a college catalogue and while there were requirements, they were of the nature (we were on a quarter system, 3 courses per normal year), 9 English credits, 9 math credits, 6 PE credits, etc.
It was left up to the student to select which courses would fill those credit requirements.
There was also a prerequisite tree, so some things you couldn't avoid. You were pretty much going to have to take Paragraph Writing in English and whatever the pre-algebra was in math, unless you tested out. And there were placement tests which could give you credit for the bottom of the tree.
But after that, you could focus on statistics or business math or literature or composition. I particularly liked the structure of Paragraph Writing, Beginning Essay Writing, Intermediate Essay Writing, Advanced EW: Research Paper, Advanced EW: Persuasive Writing, Advanced EW: Article Writing, etc.
We also had a second year of biology and chemistry for those inclined.
After I finished they switched to a semester system and it was all replaced with almost entirely requirements. English 1, English 2, English 3.... Do the teachers even know what topics are meant to be covered when courses are titled so generically?
The argument was htat the earlier system was good for kids who knew what they wanted but that everyone else needed to be told what to learn.
Bunch of hogwash. I'm more and more convinced that the education system (teacher education) is driven by latest fads and whatever Cool Aid has caught the literature's eye than actual science about how people learn.
I agree that there are many things worth knowing. I do think schools could do a better job doubling up for efficiency purposes though. Instead of teaching math with arbitrary equations, combine it with physics and chemistry and economics. Instead of English class covering arbitrary fiction to write essays on, combine it with history class. It'd be a lot more efficient and free up time for other subjects.
I do agree that too many subjects are currently mandated, but I think mandating a few very important ones are okay. I think many kids and/or their parents make very poor decisions, and it's sometimes good to have a little bit of a nanny state make decisions for the same reasons you'd want a nanny to make decisions for a child.
That might make sense if the nanny state had the knowledge and incentives to make the right decisions for each child, as a nanny might. It doesn't, as demonstrated by both your example of what it should do and doesn't and the uniformity of actual public school syllabi — a little opportunity to choose electives, but mostly the same subjects for all kids.
If it'd be possible to completely dismantle the nanny state and replace it with anarcho-capitalism, I think it'd be easier to first replace it with a smaller nanny state that makes better decisions.
In this case you don't have to dismantle the state, just its control over schooling, which you can do with a voucher program, something that actually exists in some states already.
I think more economics should be taught in schools. Maybe as an unit in math classes. It's not intuitive stuff to most people.
I think there are more things worth knowing than can be included in a high school, or college, syllabus. Economics should be available for those that want to learn it. I don't believe in having a body of things that all kids are supposed to learn. The extreme version of my approach is unschooling, which we used for our kids.
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/unschooling-1
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/unschooling-2
I was very fortunate in that my high school had what amounted to a college catalogue and while there were requirements, they were of the nature (we were on a quarter system, 3 courses per normal year), 9 English credits, 9 math credits, 6 PE credits, etc.
It was left up to the student to select which courses would fill those credit requirements.
There was also a prerequisite tree, so some things you couldn't avoid. You were pretty much going to have to take Paragraph Writing in English and whatever the pre-algebra was in math, unless you tested out. And there were placement tests which could give you credit for the bottom of the tree.
But after that, you could focus on statistics or business math or literature or composition. I particularly liked the structure of Paragraph Writing, Beginning Essay Writing, Intermediate Essay Writing, Advanced EW: Research Paper, Advanced EW: Persuasive Writing, Advanced EW: Article Writing, etc.
We also had a second year of biology and chemistry for those inclined.
After I finished they switched to a semester system and it was all replaced with almost entirely requirements. English 1, English 2, English 3.... Do the teachers even know what topics are meant to be covered when courses are titled so generically?
The argument was htat the earlier system was good for kids who knew what they wanted but that everyone else needed to be told what to learn.
Bunch of hogwash. I'm more and more convinced that the education system (teacher education) is driven by latest fads and whatever Cool Aid has caught the literature's eye than actual science about how people learn.
I agree that there are many things worth knowing. I do think schools could do a better job doubling up for efficiency purposes though. Instead of teaching math with arbitrary equations, combine it with physics and chemistry and economics. Instead of English class covering arbitrary fiction to write essays on, combine it with history class. It'd be a lot more efficient and free up time for other subjects.
I do agree that too many subjects are currently mandated, but I think mandating a few very important ones are okay. I think many kids and/or their parents make very poor decisions, and it's sometimes good to have a little bit of a nanny state make decisions for the same reasons you'd want a nanny to make decisions for a child.
That might make sense if the nanny state had the knowledge and incentives to make the right decisions for each child, as a nanny might. It doesn't, as demonstrated by both your example of what it should do and doesn't and the uniformity of actual public school syllabi — a little opportunity to choose electives, but mostly the same subjects for all kids.
If it'd be possible to completely dismantle the nanny state and replace it with anarcho-capitalism, I think it'd be easier to first replace it with a smaller nanny state that makes better decisions.
> I think it'd be easier to first replace it with a smaller nanny state that makes better decisions.
I don't think so. That would require somehow filling the bureaucracy with competent nannies.
In this case you don't have to dismantle the state, just its control over schooling, which you can do with a voucher program, something that actually exists in some states already.