Debate What is the ideal education system ?

Maciamo:
Sorry, I can't entirely agree with the above. Yes, schools have an important role in teaching children/young people socialisation skills, but as important, learning skills. General knowledge subjects, such as History, Geography should be taught from about Primary School Grade 3 or Grade 4, as they were when I was young. Of course basics, like English and mathematics should start at Day 1 Year 1. In Grade six, higher mathematics, sciences along with skill based subjects such as woodwork, metalwork cooking etc. By introducing a fairly wide curriculum, the system should be able to weed out those with an academic bent from those who will work in the trade system and those who will, by necessity, work in so-called unskilled positions. College, Grades 11 and 12 are the preparatory years for University, where the students choose their future career and which is the final stage for the academics, medicos, lawyers, accountants etc. Languages, as an optional extra, depending on the countrys global position and needs, should reflect the requirement of the individual or even the particular community to communicate with neighbours. Basically, the above is how it is in Australia, although every day I see examples of sloppy education in almost every walk of life, with poor grammar, spelling and pronounciation at the forefront.

I have never had such classes as woodwork, metalwork, cooking or the like. It's not part of the curriculum in many countries.

I agree that mother tongue and mathematics should be taught from day one in primary school. But that's almost the only thing that was taught in primary school in my days. I longed for history and science classes but had to wait until the 6th grade (11 years old) to have the first introduction in either (hence I started by myself). Likewise I find it shocking that kids only begin to learn to read and write in the first grade (from age 6 in most countries) while it could easily be taught fro 4 or 5 years old. 95% of children in Belgium go to (free) kindergarten from 3 years old, so it's not unreasonable. Compulsory education should start from 3 or 4 years old and children should already start to read then.

I am also dismayed that even in a multilingual country like Belgium foreign language learning only truly start from secondary school (12 years old) and, in my experience, the teaching methods were utterly antiquated and inefficient (far too theoretical, too much emphasis on grammar and rare exceptions). Language specialists almost all agree that the earlier one starts to learn a language the easier it is to acquire it. The first foreign language should be taught from age 6 or before. Then the second and third can come in secondary school, since there wouldn't be enough time at primary school. Then if after compulsory school people want to learn a fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh language, like I did, they can more easily do it on their own, as they already have the experience of learning several languages. For example I taught myself Japanese in my twenties.
 
Maciamo: You will not find any argument with me. I agree that languages could/should be taught from an early age. Unfortunately, as Australia has no land borders with another country, this has been a very low priority. And which language/s to teach? Our trading partners are diverse; USA, China, Japan, Indonesia and other South East Asian countries-so where do we start?
I have never had such classes as woodwork, metalwork, cooking or the like. It's not part of the curriculum in many countries.
I think, in this area, we have it right. Not all students will go on to academia and those who won't need some basis for the job they will choose to take up. Australian schools also teach typing, Technical Drawing and some even teach basic motor mechanics. My main beef is with the lack achievement in basic subjects such a Reading, History, Geography and English, the very basics of any job.
 
Maciamo: You will not find any argument with me. I agree that languages could/should be taught from an early age. Unfortunately, as Australia has no land borders with another country, this has been a very low priority. And which language/s to teach? Our trading partners are diverse; USA, China, Japan, Indonesia and other South East Asian countries-so where do we start?

I didn't say that everybody should learn the same foreign language at school. It would be much better for everybody if children could choose the languages they learnt. If you have to learn a language you dislike, you won't learn much. Each language has its own personality and it is much better to choose a language that fits one's personality or one that we find attractive or useful. Motivation is the main motor of learning. Motivation comes from liking. Therefore it is better for students and teachers alike if students can choose the language they want to learn. It is also better for society as a whole if there is a wide range of languages spoken by workers. If all Australians were to learn, say German, there would be too many German speakers for business and very few for other languages. If some people learned Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German and Russian, then there would be no shortage of people who could do business or translations in those languages. Different languages also affect differently the way of seeing the world, creativity, understanding, etc. of the people who learn them, improving the "overall open-mindedness" of society. However you look at it, it is a good thing for schools to propose a wide choice of foreign languages to their students (as early as possible).

I think, in this area, we have it right. Not all students will go on to academia and those who won't need some basis for the job they will choose to take up. Australian schools also teach typing, Technical Drawing and some even teach basic motor mechanics. My main beef is with the lack achievement in basic subjects such a Reading, History, Geography and English, the very basics of any job.

There are less jobs in academia than in technical or manual fields. However, I still believe that everybody should have a sound basic knowledge of things like geography and history, whatever their orientation. It's like good manners, it shouldn't depend on what you studied, but be learned by everyone.
 
Most importantly, I think the best education is the one that teaches to constantly question everything. Classes should be structured around making the world a better place in every sense, what it means to be a global citizen, understanding ideologies and the misunderstandings that result from them. Students should be taught to listen to their own bodies, minds, and spirits by meditating. They should also be taught to always remember they are all one people, regardless of race, gender, orientation, nationality, income, or any other barrier.
 
...For one thing, there already are 3 levels of math that you can take depending what your school offers....
The problem is that if you take Math Essentials you can only go up until grade 11 with it, and cannot write the Provincial Exam (which is standardized and is designed for the regular math course) meaning your options are limited....

When you say that students who have taken Math Essentials "cannot" write the Provincial Exam, do you mean that they are not allowed to attempt it or do you mean that the Math Essentials course does not teach enough of the material that is on the exam and students must generally seek outside exam-prep tutoring if they want to take it?
 
The ideal education system allows students to express their passions first. Then fuels their motivations. Teaching everyone more or less the same is turning society into miserable sheep. Individualism is what the world needs not just for people to exceed in their fields but also the world to have more positive energy.
 
Introduction
Education is one of the most important thing for a society to prosper and be safe. Education forms the character and intelligence of individuals. But how should governments proceed to educate their country's children in an optimum way ?
There are remarkable differences in the content and the way things are taught in schools around the world, and even in the so-called developed countries. But one sure thing is that no country possess a perfect education system, and IMO, the education level has been decreasing, while children and teenagers have alongside become more difficult and better protected by their parents than before. As a result, school becomes less strict and less efficient.
Europe vs Japan
Comparing the purpose of education in Japan and Europe, I realized that the main difference was that European go to school to learn and graduate with an expected amount of knowledge and reasoning skills (analysis, logic, critical skills, skepticism, etc.). The Japanese system teaches more how to behave in society, interact with people in a group and some factual knowledge based especially on memory.
There isn't one right system, as what one has, the other lacks. Japanese stress the importance of harmony over intelligence for itslef. That is why it is extremely rare for a pupil/student to fail a year, while it happens in almost every classes (often several people per class) in Europe. I understand that in a society based on group harmony and not distinguisinh oneself, it would be very traumatizing for a Japanese to be the only one to fail, and feel completely excluded from the group. As a result, nobody fails ! That seems too easy, but it certainly has the advantage of releasing the pressure and avoiding children to develop psychological problems or anti-social behaviour (as often happens with repeaters in the West).
The Western mentality insists that anybody who doesn't reach the expected knowledge or reasoning skill level should be punished and fail. The advantage is that students fear losing a year of their life (+ consequences to find a job later) and try harder to assimilate the knowledge and theoretically obey better the teacher for fear of failing because of misbehaviour (a serious weapon teacher have on students).
Furthermore, harmony in a strongly individualistic society where difference and originality is valued (like in most of Western countries) can only be achieved among like-minded people. So the only way to increase harmony and increase socialization is by grouping similar people together, as I will explain below.
Combining the two aspects : the ideal system
So, which shall we promote ? Stable psychology and socialization (Japan), or high intellectual exigency and the pressure that goes with it (Europe) ?
I think the ideal system is a combination of both, but including 2 important new factors that are usually not presents in most schools in Europe and Japan.
Firstly, classes should be divided by ability. The advantage is that it is more efficient, as good student are more motivated and don't feel slowed down by the rest, and less good students can spend more time on weaker subjects until they understand them. As of course most people have strong and weak subjects (some are good at everything or bad at everything, but they are few), each subject should have about 3 levels (strong, average, weak), and students should join according to their performance in each of them. So, if some is very good at maths, average at history and weak at languages, then they should join the appropriate class level for each subject.
But should the year-end exams be the same for all levels ? There are 2 possibilities :
1) Different exams for each level, leading to different certifications at the end. Completing one education cycle (3 or 6 years), the students would get a certification mentioning which level course they have followed (and passed the exam) for each subject. That has the other advantage that employers would know immediately the real strength and weakness of the person they recruit, and for students to choose more easily their college/university orientation and the carrier that best fit their capabilities.
2) Same exams, but different number of hours depending on the ability. Good students would have less hours to study the same thing, so more freetime, either to study weaker subjects, or if there aren't any, just to relax or go back home earlier. That is an excellent motivation for people to take the most difficult course and concentrate hard, so that they have to spend less time at school. But not everybody is able to, and teachers should direct the students to classes matching their ability if they can't realise it by themselves.
The point of both systems is to release pressure on too difficult subjects and give the opportunity to learn more in what one is good at. Students could be allowed to change class level within the year, if they realized it is too easy or too difficult. That would also reduce dramatically the failure rate at school, and improve social relationships, as students would be with other people of similar intelligence, abilities and interest. This would be re-inforced by my second point hereinafter.
Secondly, schools should give a wide range of options to the students, with a minimum requirement in each subject. For this the government's curriculum has to be flexible enough and not to complete. It is usually ok in Europe, but the Japanese Ministry of Education is notorious for deciding the exact content of everthing and limiting the use of school books to only a few government approved ones. In comparison, European teachers (maybe not everywhere ??), have the freedom to use any book they want, approved or not, decide more or less what they teach and even create their own materials (most of my teachers distributed photocopies of documents that they had written themselves or didn't use any book at all, which would only get the teachers fired and have serious problems in Japan, have I been told).
The idea is to give the students the chance to learn what they like best, or at least to have more hours of their favourite subjects (or those they deem necessary for their future). This system is already the norm in most English-speaking countries, but is much less developed in continental Europe, where all students must learn all subjects, and can usually only choose to have a few more or less hours a week of some subjects (like maths, sciences or languages). But they are almost always allowed to choose at least their foreign languages (the number of choices vary depending on the school itself) and some options not in the curriculum (e.g. psychology, economy. arts, electricity...).
I think the best system should have a minimum requirement for important subjects such as maths, one's mother tongue, history, geography, sciences and maybe even some economy (e.g. like how to manage one's money or how to pay one's taxes) or psychology (e.g. how to study more effectively or analyze one's personality). In addition, people should choose some options or more hours of the compulsory subjects. That is the best way of motivating students, and not have them fall asleep in class or feel school is useless.
Conclusion
The ideal school system should divide students by abilities, give them the possibility to change class level according to how they follow, so as to reduce the failure rate and increase socialization, but also be able to choose options quite early based on their interest so as to stimulate their motivation, and further increase socialization. The goverment should give enough freedom to schools and teachers to achieve this, while keeping a minimum curriculum for important subjects.

Loved your ideas! though there can never be an ideal system that could be replicated across all the cultures and societies but this thread of creating a 'customized' system based on the ability of a student and treat them accordingly could motivate them a lot.
 
The education system in many countries needs reform, especially China. I should think more about studying in the United States and Japan. China's education system will make China's education decline. I am more advocating free education and pluralistic education in the United States and Japan.
 
Well, Japanese educational system seems to be great, but it doesn’t work I some point. Just remember what kind of people Japanese are. They work hard, they have a lot of pressure and competitions, they have a high percentage of suicides because of that, so we can’t say it’s all about stable psychology and socialization. So yeah, Europe is all about intellect and studying hard, but there’s a law pressure in comparison with Japan. I was interested in this topic couple of years ago and I’ve found a lot of bad facts about both of them, even asked essay writer to analyze and compile all the info to make it look like a normal research.
 
Nice illustration for ideal education system and I really like your conclusion. Thank you
 
Idk, I think it’s different for everyone. For me such a system shouldn’t contain literature class xD Because I really hate it and have huge troubles with my teacher. But I should probably agree with guys who said “allows students to express their passions first”. And also something about freedom of speech. I have troubles only because my teacher strongly disagrees with all of my ideas. But I already dealt with that and started working with edubirdie reviews so they could write essays for me and I wouldn’t get in trouble because of my position again.
 
There is not an ideal educational system. But here are some ideas:

1. Grade school - Socialization mainly, learn how to play well with others. Yes, each them how to read and write using fun and games but mainly use this level to teach them how to work as a team. Instill in them the love of reading, of creating, of imagination. Teach them how to use media to express their ideas.
2. Middle school - Start teaching them the scientific method.Have them engage in fun, scientific projects such as cleaning up a polluted river in the state. Give them placement tests that gauge their interests and abilities and help place them in different levels of accomplishment. Teach them about the world around us. Geography, history, world history, biology, psychology, zoology, etc. They don't need to be at an advanced level although more advanced levels should be available to interested students. Math such as algebra and geometry should be introduced around the age of 15, earlier for more precocious students. Alternative instruction via recorded lessons should be available. Let's face it, not all teachers are good and being taught by a better teacher should be available. Advancement should be by standardized testing. Tests should be given once a month or more frequently to test a self contained instruction unit. Tests should be online and results immediately available. Advancement tests at the end of the year or semester put way too much pressure on kids and allow the kids to slack off during the rest of the year. Kids should be able to retake a unit that they failed. Again, different levels of instruction should be available (Basic, Honors, Advanced). A team project should be also undertaken for the year involving service to the community. Lots of after school clubs and activities should be offered (music, foreign languages, theatre, service clubs, etc.)
3. High School - The age of specialization, with both technical (math, science), medical (Advanced Biology, Anatomy, etc), legal, liberal arts and more practical (plumbing, electrical, car repair) courses available. Apprenticeships should be available for those more inclined for hands on work. Same standards as middle school apply.
4. Undergraduate - Entrance should be granted to those that showed high achievement throughout their high school career as shown by the Advanced Placements tests at the conclusion of an Advanced Placement courses, not some arbitrary entrance exam at the conclusion of your high school career that devalues all the hard work you did during HS. Here again there should be a bifurcation between those that want to graduate and gets jobs in the real world and those that want to pursue graduate studies. Pair down the courses to achieve a degree. For example, in engineering, Statics and Dynamics courses should only be taught to engineering disciplines that will use them in their line of work. Same thing for Thermodynamics, etc. Only teach university courses that will be used in one's work in the real world. Courses that emphasize work in the real world should replace useless courses. University takes way too long to produce graduates that are real world ready. For example, to become a doctor in the US you have to go 4 years to pre-med, 4 years of medical school, one year of internship, 3-6 years of specialization/residency. That's way, way too long and too expensive. Pare it down to 4 years of medical school and then 3-6 years of residency. University should be all about teaching and not research so hire good teachers. I was taught certain engineering courses by Chinese graduate students that could not speak English to save their lives and were bad teachers to boot. Hire talented university instructors that can actually teach.
5. Graduate School - Should be separate from the undergraduate level. Do not attempt to get graduate students to teach at the undergraduate level. They can engage in research activities while they are taking advanced courses.
6. Research - Should be conducted at a Research Institute associated with the University.

Oh, education at all levels should be free although private universities should be allowed. Remote and OTT instruction should be available so if you live in Nice, you should not have to leave your parents home in Nice to study at the Ecole Polytechnique.
 
The ideal education system puts the best teachers who can nurture today’s analytical and open-minded students. While it’s OK to establish stringent measures so students don’t have to cheat https://www ihatewritingessays com/students-cheating, perhaps they shouldn’t go as far as expelling or putting a student to jail when they get caught for something like plagiarism. I feel sorry for these kids whose future get destroyed for such things.
 
It's interesting that no one (at least that I noticed in skimming the comments) has mentioned online education. Within a framework of standard requirements (reading, basic math, civics, etc) it could free the student to advance at their own rate and study what truly interests them. It would also obviate issues with sub-par/disinterested teachers and remove bullying and unruly classroom behavior as obstacles to learning.

Guidelines would have to be created to ensure that students don't go down rabbit holes and that they get enough breadth of knowledge/experience to ensure they make an 'educated' decision on their final field of study.

Plus, kids love using the computer and hate sitting at a school desk being lectured at (don't you?).
 
First, education should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances. Second, it should be tailored to the needs of each individual learner, with a focus on promoting critical thinking and creativity. Third, the curriculum should be designed to prepare students for the challenges of the real world, not just academic success. Finally, educators should be highly trained professionals who are passionate about their work and committed to providing a high-quality learning experience for every student. While there is no single silver bullet for creating the perfect education system, but as for me these principles create a foundation for success.
 

This thread has been viewed 167364 times.

Back
Top