The Summerland Advocate-Messenger - Reliable, Trustworthy Reporting, Capturing The Heartbeat Of Our Community

Recently, I read an article about the structure of high school and how it sets up students for failure.

The article's premise and subsequent offer for solution, gave me pause.

The basic theme: "We are married to a system that has not been properly re-evaluated for 21st-century capabilities and capacities."

An example featured the structure of the seven- or eight-class period day, how student attention is diverted multiple times during each 50-minute class period. And, to top it off, we uproot students, making them travel from room to room, where the environment can change dramatically between stops.

How can students be expected to learn anything when there isn't time to process material and put it into practice?

Plus, time for exercise, or movement in general, goes out the window. Before you know it, a FitBit signals it's 11:50 a.m., and scrolls a message stating, "Let's roll." Check the device and only 873 steps have been logged since you crawled out of bed.

Hmm, sounds familiar.

According to the article's author, Bernie Bleske, a teacher, the education system is failing on all levels.

A regular schedule provides the lowest level learning, based on Bloom's taxonomy. Sure, a student may be able to regurgitate a basic fact, but will they be able to show a deep analysis or evaluate and create a new sense of meaning after digging into a subject for 15 minutes?

Bleske argues, "If the goal is productivity, the fractured nature of the tasks undermines efficient product. So much time is spent in transition that very little is accomplished before there is a demand to move on ...The fractured nature of the work, the short amount of time provided, and the speed of change all undermine learning beyond the superficial. It's shocking, really, that students learn as much as they do."

His solution: two classes per day for a period of six to eight weeks. Rotate and repeat throughout the school year.

With this system, students delve into a subject, while educators spend more one-on-one time assisting students and checking for a thorough understanding.

Does the longer period of time focused on one subject mirror real-life situations? Isn't it the model on which the working world is based?

If we expect students to have workplace readiness skills, a school system modeled after the working world makes sense. For example, if I am enrolled in a welding class that runs 50 minutes, how much practical experience and learning occurs if I spend half a class period setting up and tearing down equipment or a project?

At best, I'm skimming the surface, not forging a strong bond between material and brain matter.

It's time for our educational system to catch up and provide 21st century learning experiences that offer real-world experiences.

It's time for students to be held accountable for their learning and future success, instead of glossing over a subject and learning the basic minimum.

As a former high school educator, I can envision how an in-depth educational setting would be beneficial, a better way to master learning, a way to engage students and provide meaningful experiences.

It's a win-win investment, resulting in a high return, benefiting the community and building the future of our economy.