How to Fix the Education System

by Benjamin Studebaker

By all accounts, the public education systems in western countries are not performing to the level that we are collectively demanding. There are fundamental structural problems with our schools that inhibit good outcomes for students. Western countries have become obsessed with universal student attainment of minimum academic standards measured by test scores and maximisation of enrolment rates at universities. I propose that this is flat out the wrong goal for our education system, that rather than try to teach everyone the same material at the same kinds of schools in the same kinds of ways, our education system should be more personalised to get the most out of each individual’s talent set, and I have a plan for how to do it.

There are several problems that feed into what makes the present system fail:

  1. Bigotry against Creativity: Exclusive priority to the academic subjects over the creative subjects.
  2. Subject Indifference: Considering the academic subjects as a whole when evaluating students rather than with more deference to student preference.
  3. University Stuffing: Demanding that all students go to university when many jobs do not call for it and many students are unsuited to it, at the expense of the skills needed.
  4. Money before Merit: Determining school placement geographically (and consequently financially) rather than on the basis of ability.

I’d like to briefly consider each of these problems before I move onto my solution aimed at addressing them.

Bigotry against Creativity:

There are many skills necessary in the modern economy beyond the verbal and mathematical. At present, these skills are relegated to subsidiary positions within schools or ignored completely in favour of the traditional academic subjects. This serves only to make the creatively gifted students feel inferior to their academically inclined brethren, and inculcates a classist view of employment in later life, in which many occupations that are totally necessary to any functioning and pleasant society are derided as non-intellectual or suitable for inferior people. This is the wrong way to look at people with alternative skills and the jobs that require them. It perpetuates social stigmas and undermines economic efficiency, as people suited for these jobs continue to struggle in the academic subjects hoping to avoid a social sense of inferiority until they burn out on them entirely. Many of our best creatively minded people end up failing to meet their creative potential because they become convinced that they are failures by an education system that disdains their natural talents.

Subject Indifference:

We expect good students to excel in a diverse range of subjects and punish them in admissions processes if they have an area in which they are lax. This is misguided because  many individuals are extremely talented in specific areas but nonetheless get passed over because of deficits in areas that they do not actually intend to pursue in later life academically or via employment. The aspirant writer does not need to be good at calculus, the aspirant engineer does not need to be able to evaluate the content of novels, neither needs to be able to manufacture an object of utility and aesthetic value, and someone working on that latter project needs neither of the former’s skills. Rather than forcing people to work on skills that will be irrelevant to their future employment, our education system should permit people to specialise in the areas in which they find themselves interested if they so choose, allowing them to choose the subjects upon which they will be evaluated and judged going forward. Doing otherwise penalises speciality, which may be far deeper than the conventional exams are prepared to measure, in favour of a broad but shallow knowledge, most of which will, in the long run, prove economically wasteful.

University Stuffing:

By pushing everyone into universities and colleges, our education system has turned these institutions into just another tool for weeding out students rather than a tool for developing deep specialised knowledge. Particularly in the United States, many universities have become merely an extension of high school, with broad curricula that illustrate a student’s ability to learn a little bit about a lot of things but convey no singular talent or skill. Like it or not, real occupations do require deep specialised knowledge and specific skills and abilities. With universities being dumbed down to accommodate a larger audience most of which is not suited to academic study but is attending for social or cultural reasons (because everyone does, as a dating service, or because it’s where the fun is), the necessary specialisation is being pushed further out into graduate school, and college degrees are taking longer to convey the same information than ever before. It’s breathtakingly inefficient, both for the students who have to pay for the extra years of education and for wider society, which gets fewer years of service out of its workers. In the meantime, students unsuited to university do not learn the skills needed to pursue a creative or technical trade and come out little better off than they were before they went in, but with far greater debts.

Money before Merit:

At present, students are placed into schools based on where they live. As a result, rich parents congregate in school districts, push up the funding for those districts via their tax money, and create good schools. This works well for them, but it leaves students in other geographic areas with comparatively dramatically underfunded schools with less parental involvement. As a result, talented students from poor families fail to reach their potential.

So how do we fix it? Here’s my proposal, the 3 by 3 system:

 3 by 3 System

Remedial Standard Advanced
Creative/Technical RCT SCT ACT
Maths/Nat. Sciences RMN SMN AMN
Verbal/Social Sciences RVS SVS


Via this model, students would be organised along two lines–best skill, and aptitude. Students would be selected for these various institutions on the basis of performance in grade school via teacher assessment and testing. All nine school types would receive equal funding from the state via taxes. Funding private schools presently receive voluntarily from wealthy parents would be recouped by the schools through higher tax rates on the wealthy. Students could apply to switch specialisations or tiers if their interests shifted or their aptitude relative to their fellow students changed, respectively. Rather than apply for universities in stressful and test-driven processes, students would naturally graduate up from these schools to more specialist education based on their previous school of enrolment, be that academic universities or art/music/technical schools. This system would encourage:

  1. The students creatively or technically inclined to meet their potential and feel no shame about their different skills and assets.
  2. Students who perform especially well in one or two subjects to be treated equally to students with more broad talents or interests.
  3. Students to be tracked in or out of university on the basis of need and ability rather than thrown together, without a stigma for non-attendance.
  4. The minimisation of the impact family income has on opportunity–obviously dedicated parents will still be a great help to some students, but the only way to do away with that is to level down and harm high-performance students by deliberately destroying their families or prohibiting their families from helping them to make them equal to the other students.

This is much better than the current systems employed in most western countries, and corrects the flaws of existing meritocratic education systems (like Germany’s) that do not permit switching among schools in cases of shifting talents or abilities and under-fund the remedial institutions, preserving the stigmas associated with them. I hold that this system corrects the flaws listed here and would be a remarkable improvement over what is currently run in the US, the UK, and many other countries. What do you think?