Sometimes, in my meetings with the students' parents, I have compared education to a meal in which, in order for it to be perfect, all the elements involved must be suitable. Following the simile, today I am going to talk about the food itself, about what is given in compulsory education, that is, the curriculum.
I think we eat for three reasons: survival, health (ideal diet) and pleasure. We should always eat for all three and, failing that, at least for the first two.
Does this happen in education? In my opinion, not entirely, and I will explain why. Asking for teaching to be fun is complicated, if not impossible, since it involves work and effort. However, it can be made entertaining or at least bearable and not seem like a punishment. The second reason is essential, it has to be healthy, that is, useful. Is it? Not all of it, because there is a part that is useless, obsolete and sometimes bores the sheep.
In general, the curriculum has a defect for me: that it is very academic. That is, it is structured in subjects and many topics are given that only have their reason for being within that closed world. They are not usually useful for life in general. How do we realize this? Very simple. The first warning is given to us by the student with their general disinterest, their bored face and sometimes with the well-known question: teacher, what are we doing this for? To answer it, I would force all curriculum designers to prepare a manual for the teacher, which they can use when this happens, where the why and the what for is explained, and for those who do not have reasonable arguments, eliminate them. The student is not stupid and does not usually ask when they see some utility. To respond, we can only use the usual arguments: to pass the exam, because the law requires it, because you are going to give it at higher levels and they are going to ask you to know it. When we are already in secondary school, the collateral effects are greater, as disinterest can grow and the climate can be broken to adequately teach the class. These last cases are what I call the survival curriculum. (To give just one personal example, I will say that it has happened to me frequently in language (5th and 6th grade) with the topic of verb complements).
What to do? Logically, change the survival curriculum for another useful and current one. First of all, we must give another approach, focused not on subjects, but on the human being as a person who intends to live better and happier. The basics for me of compulsory education is to teach how to reflect, to enhance creativity and express it, and to achieve the maximum degree of personal autonomy that allows us to insert ourselves into this world to understand and accept or transform it.
I conclude with an example. When we haven't seen each other for a while, we always ask about health. Apart from being a custom, it implies the fact that being healthy is highly valued in order to be happy. Well, following the reasoning, I put education for physical, mental and social health as a basic element of the curriculum. We would give first aid, nutritional education, diets, sex education, home remedies, adequate exercise... (Can you imagine the savings for healthcare). This in the physical aspect, but what about the mental one. Is there any control of emotions and feelings? Does the student have guidelines for such current issues as overcoming the separation of couples in the least traumatic way possible, or facing future dramatic situations, of illness, catastrophes, job loss or the loss of a loved one. Do teenagers have any idea how to deal with the typical problems of their age. And what about social skills? We live separated by a wall and we don't know each other, the family is moving towards a drastic reduction and we will have to think about other groups of coexistence. Are we prepared to face unwanted loneliness?
I think that what I outline would improve the situation, although I cannot guarantee it. What I do assure is that more of the same, and even worse, is not going to solve anything. The least we can do is think that we have to change, but really, not cosmetic.
In the next article I will reflect on the cooks and kitchen helpers.
(From the subject of Religion I only point out that for me it would never have a place in any curriculum. I refuse to accept that we are defined with the adjective of rational if it enters an educational system, unless we take off the mask of hypocrisy and say that it is given for specific interests).
