Fluidity in Education

There is an overused saying on how, technically, everyone is a genius. Deep as it might have sounded when it was first used, many people, especially those of the conservative political persuasion, would dismiss it as a liberal agenda (Paquette & Trudel, 2018). These people argued that the statement was a ploy to write off individual brilliance and excellence, especially in the education sector, kill competition, and brand everyone a winner even when some were smarter than others. While they might be right, they missed an essential aspect:- the education system, as it currently, rewards discipline and obedience more than it rewards creativity and freedom of thought (Admiraal et al., 2017). Oftentimes, the people who excel, especially from secondary school onwards, might only sometimes be the most creative but are primarily the most disciplined and consistent.

While it is crucial to be virtuous, that discipline, diligence, and consistency are some of the most significant determinants of success, but they can only get one so far. If children are only trained to follow the rules and, as it is currently in the education sector, hardly ask any questions or challenge the teacher, the best these children can become is what everyone else out there is (Dewi et al., 2019). This approach, brought about by the limited choices presented to children when they get to secondary school, not only limits their creativity but also numbs them and kills their curiosity. Without curiosity, these children are being programmed from a very young age to look at the world in absolutes (Ahmed et al., 2019). With that kind of mindset, it is hardly possible for them to generate new ideas because it takes boldness and inquisitiveness to come up with a different perspective than what is considered conventional.

Allowing children to choose their preferred subjects makes the education system more student-centred. Student-centred education systems have proven to have the best results, especially in promoting creativity (Darsih, 2018). As opposed to assuming that all the students have the same understanding, strengths, and interests, the system allows them to specify what they are good at. Instead of forcing them with subjects they might excel in, these children are allowed to only work with the subjects they have an interest in and a unique ability in. In doing so, these systems encourage creativity among children because the focus of these children has now been solely invested in what they are interested in (Dewi et al., 2019). The systems are characterised by multitalented students who excel in several fields, unlike the inflexible school systems that only produce enthusiastic students in a few disciplines.

Even though creativity and curiosity are fundamental aspects of any child’s learning process, they should not be used as the guiding principle on how an education system should be structured. When the entire education system is based on what the students want rather than what they need, it ceases to be productive and objective. The main problem with making the education system student-centred is that children need to be more mature to know what they want. It is not wise to let 13-year-old decide what they want to do (Dewi et al., 2019). While many may have the maturity and depth to understand their dreams and how to get there, most require guidance. This guidance can only be provided with a well-defined system that will determine, from years of experience by the teachers and instructors, what might be best for the student.

Similarly, it is essential that from a young age, children are trained to understand that things do not always have to go their way. This lesson will help them realise that life comes with challenges and teach them how to handle disappointments. They will only learn this lesson if they follow a system that trains them on discipline, constituency, and diligence (Chinai et al., 2018). The system must also ensure they understand the importance of doing what needs to be done instead of always doing what they feel like doing. By the time these children reach adulthood, they will be well-rounded young adults with all the skills and virtues required to manoeuvre the uncertainties of life.

While it might be true that children as young as 13 might not have the insight to know for sure what they want, their uncertainty and naivete are not an excuse to torture them with an education system that will disorient them even further. The parents and teachers must be observant, friendly, and inquisitive enough to ensure that they understand these children (Dewi et al., 2019). Someone interested in sports or technical drawing will likely show the signs from as early as their formative years. If the teachers and parents pay attention, they will not have to guess or make decisions on behalf of the children but nurture what they have observed thus far (Dewi et al., 2019). Furthermore, discipline and consistency will be easy for passionate individuals to pursue what they love as much as if they were forced with subjects they despise.

The second reason children should be allowed to choose the subjects they want to do in secondary school is that it will enable them to build their preferred career from a very young age. Most secondary schools spend so much time teaching children many things they might never use in their professional careers (Chinai et al., 2018). If a student focuses on specific subjects aligned with the career choice they are interested in, they will have a deeper understanding of the field. By the time these students get to college and begin their diploma, they will have an excellent foundation in their career as opposed to starting their profession from scratch in college (Dewi et al., 2019). Furthermore, it will ensure that they make a more informed career choice instead of the indecisiveness that comes with having done all the subjects.

Similarly, building a professional career from as early as secondary school is important because it shortens the time taken during the learning process. If the secondary education system allowed children to choose their preferred subjects, these children would take approximately half the total time they usually take in school (Paquette & Trudel, 2018). Not only does this option help them realise their dream careers sooner, but it also cuts down on the expensive cost of education. Some of the basics that would have otherwise been taught in college can be introduced in secondary schools for these children. Consequently, these children will spend a shorter time in college and minimise their student debt, which has become a crisis with many college graduates in recent years (Popescu, 2017). Most importantly, it will introduce these children into the field early enough when they can still learn and gain lots of experience.

The only downside of this point is that it ends up limiting the career options of these children. If the children only choose the subjects that, at the time, they think they will need in their career, then it means that they can only pursue that career and nothing else. Should their interests change later, they will have locked themselves out of all other options. If they had done all the subjects, the burden would have been a bit hefty, but they would have had more career options by the time they graduated from secondary school (Dewi et al., 2019). It would also mean that they could pursue more than just one career, a major and a minor course in college, to broaden their career options. Ultimately, such a child would be better placed to deal with the ever-evolving job market and ensure financial stability.

While it is valid that choosing one career path and specialising in it early might lock a child out of other options, it is essential to point out that they would become specialists in their respective fields sooner (Dewi et al., 2019). Should these children like to switch careers at some point, they will still be significantly young enough to practically take on a new career path because they will have spent a short time studying the subjects they chose. This option is preferable to taking the children through a long, rigorous, and tiresome learning process in the hope that they will make a career out of the choices you have given them (Dewi et al., 2019). In most cases, these children perform very averagely or even fail in all these subjects and might, in the end, not qualify for any professional career, let alone have multiple career options.

Conclusion

Even though some argue that the education system was designed with the learners’ interests in mind, this aspect has yet to be reflected in its outcome. The system needs to be apt enough to keep up with the dynamism of the current world. Thus, it ends up failing to reward the creativity that is necessary to tackle today’s challenges. If the education system allows children to choose their preferred subjects early enough, it promotes creativity and ingenuity. While this might come with quite a responsibility on the parents, teachers, and even the children themselves, the results would be happier, gifted, and specialised children. Similarly, this approach ensures that the children start work on their career options early enough. Even though it might limit their career options, it ensures they take a shorter time in school, spend longer in practice, and gain experience.

References

1. Admiraal, W. et al. (2017) Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and Technology, Computers & Education. Pergamon. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131517301495 (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
2. Ahmed , A., Wojcik , E.M. and Mirza, K.M. (2019) Learning Styles in Pathology: A Comparative Analysis and Implications for Learner-Centered Education, SAGE Journals Home. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2374289519852315 (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
3. Chinai, S.A. et al. (2018) Taking advantage of the teachable moment: A review of learner-centered clinical teaching models, The western journal of emergency medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785198/ (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
4. Darsih, E. (2018) Learner-centered teaching: What makes it effective, Indonesian EFL Journal. Available at: https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/article/view/796 (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
5. Dewi , R.S. et al. (2019) Effectiveness of Student – Centered Learning to Increase Learning Motivation of Students in Inventory Assessment Class, ProQuest. ProQuest. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/4bd0058456ef3deaa89016651e38d02c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=556342 (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
6. Paquette, K. and Trudel, P. (2018) The evolution and learner-centered status of a coach education program, Human Kinetics. Human Kinetics. Available at: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/iscj/5/1/article-p24.xml (Accessed: January 11, 2023).
7. Popescu , G.H. (2017) Does student debt constitute a bubble that may bring about an educational crisis?, Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300027 (Accessed: January 11, 2023).