Month: May 2005

On the way back from Cross Village, Sonya and I had a discussion about education. With her recently acquired degree in elementary education and my interest in tirelessly debating everything, it was a pretty interesting conversation (at least for one of us). We talked about why people think kids today do not learn much in school and whether this opinion is true. We also covered the differences between learning things, learning how to locate things, and learning how to learn. I am sure she reached different conclusions than I did, but I would like to share the things I realized as part of this conversation.

The part of education that I would consider most useful in a general sense is something I would call research. An example of a research assignment would be to ask a student a question, such as what is the executive title in Canada’s national government. The student would then (1) locate and identify media sources with this information, (2) read and comprehend the media sources, and (3) effectively communicate the answer to the question. This format is really quite flexible; the question can be detailed and specific or very broad. The available media sources could be unlimited or just one chapter in a textbook. The answer could be communicated in the form of a single, written sentence, a large paper, an informal conversation, or a formal presentation. This research format could be expanded by adding a step (#2.5) of collaboration. The format would change from research to problem solving if the original question is replaced with a problem; the students would need to formulate questions that might help solve the problem.

Much of what I have done in my short professional career has followed this research model. This is how to learn; it encompasses literary arts, history, science, and advanced mathematics. (The rest of what I have done at work is the implementation of the answers I have discovered.)

I would argue that the retention of the discovered answer is generally quite unimportant. It is important for students to know how to learn. It is not important or students to know the leadership titles of foreign governments. Reading and comprehending information is critical, as is the ability to effectively share that information.

While talking with Sonya, I identified three nonessential skills that schools often focus on. The first is alphabetizing. It is useful to be able to alphabetizing quickly, and I am often surprised when I see people who have trouble with this. However, it is only marginally helpful to the research model described above, and it is unrelated to the critical skills. The next is mental arithmatic. I have the same opinion of this; it is nice to be good at, but it is unrelated to the learning process. (Incidentally, I have known at least one talented math major who was bad at arithmatic.) The third skill is spelling. I was reluctant to admit this, because I consider it important to spell correctly. (You don’t want me to find a spelling mistake on your resume!) However, spelling is unrelated to reading and comprehension. Modern spell checkers reduce the need for spelling ability, and I would like to draw a line distinguishing spelling errors from semantic errors.

While alphabetizing, mental arithmatic, and spelling are unrelated to the critical skills of research, they share similarities and certainly are not useless. For lack of a better explanation, being good at these things is simply being smart. Standard aptitude tests measure and emphasize these skills.

Using broad generalities and cruel, arbitrary judgments, it seems like people can be reduced to four groups:

1. Good at learning (i.e. educated) and smart
2. Good at learning (i.e. educated) and not smart
3. Not good at learning (i.e. uneducated) but smart
4. Not good at learning (i.e. uneducated) but not smart

Someone with college degree has evidence of their ability to learn. However, they may still rely on pocket calculators and spellcheckers and not be able to find words in the dictionary. Kindergarten teachers can easily tell you which of their students are smart even before the students really know how to learn.

Ever had one of those thoughts that seemed to make sense for a moment before you realized how ludicrous it was? But then after more reflection it almost makes sense again?

I was reading this article about a $350 million cocaine bust, which mentions the Bush administration requested $600 million for Colombia’s anti-cocaine effort. Clearly, or so it seemed momentarily, they won’t need the full $600 million since they just got more than half of it from this one drug bust! But soon reality set in, and I realized that despite the cocaine having such a high American street value, the Colombian authorities will not be collecting on that. The article goes on to explain how the amount of cocaine on U.S. streets has not declined despite more than $3 billion in assistance to Colombia over the past 5 years.

Would it be so crazy for the Drug Enforcement Agency take the drugs collected in busts and sell them on the streets in America? One could raise the point that drug abuse has negatively affected so many lives. However, people clearly have had access to illegal drugs without any help from the DEA. If the DEA sold drugs, it would have additional funds for the fight against drugs. If it undersold the competition, Colombian drug lords would lose their profit motive. The DEA might run them out of business!

Now someone may be thinking that a lowered price would result in more drug users — simple supply/demand economics. To those people I ask this: is the price of illegal drugs the reason you aren’t an addict? Do you know how much these drugs cost? I expect some will answer yes to both questions, but I doubt that is the majority. It is generally accepted that, among hard-core addicts, illegal drugs are price-inelastic; the demand is relatively constant regardless of the price. There is more contention about the price-elasticity among experimental users.

So, in short, if the DEA sold drugs, there would be more funding for drug enforcement, less incentive for suppliers, and a mixed result on users. I know that is not a perfect outcome, but it is arguably better than the outcomes from their current strategy.