I read with interest “What Determines How Well Kids Do in School?” by Toni Feder ( Physics Today, December 2009, page 28). Mike Marder and Dhruv Bansal, whose analysis was the subject of Feder’s piece, identify a sharp downturn in school performance in grades 5–8, particularly among low-income students.
I have observed the educational system firsthand over a number of years. While performing research at Xerox research labs, I developed and implemented science programs for inner-city schools in Rochester, New York. Eventually, 50 to 100 scientists from Xerox and Kodak taught science part-time in public schools. Although those programs had limited success, they did not attack the real, practical problems of life—primarily jobs and money. So I implemented money-making work activities for inner-city students on my own, because I could not get support for those practical activities.
From my observations of students in various settings, I believe that the drop in performance in grades 5–8 is related to the onset of sexual maturation, in which the surge of hormones also induces a surge of independence. It is all natural biochemical behavior, but at that age students are not prepared to be rationally independent. The problem is compounded for low-income students who have insufficient resources and insufficient parental control and influence to guide them. The students are anxious to proceed independently and successfully but lack the necessary skills and maturity. That conflict between desire and maturity level causes extensive problems from which it seems most low-income students never fully recover.
In my experience, many low-income students do not see any correlation between success in school and success in life, a trait they may have inherited from their parents and families. Judging by the programs I have initiated and implemented, low-income students relate more enthusiastically to money-making concepts than to academic subjects like spelling, history, or languages. But they are very interested in arithmetic–if money is involved.
The biggest failure of US education is its lack of direct obvious connection to fundamental realities. Therefore, I have proposed for many years that the practical relevance of education be a focus of the curriculum and that it center around a few core concepts.
In my program, a personal job/career plan would be the backbone of education for all students, starting in grade 1 and escalating through grade 12. Students would determine their personal career goals and objectives and would develop timed plans to acquire the skills necessary to achieve them. They would set primary, secondary, and tertiary goals, and plans would change to fit students’ maturity, needs, and reality.
Key elements of the course would be how to choose a profession and what skills are required; how to apply for, obtain, and advance in a job; how to make, invest, budget, and spend money; how to run a company; and how to start and operate a business. Conventional subjects of reading, writing, arithmetic, and science would be incorporated into the curriculum as they fit the overall structure. Students would be encouraged to get jobs as early as possible and integrate their practical experience into the course.
