When we first looked into the state Department of Education’s plans to revamp high school curricula across the state, following a presentation at last week’s Manville Board of Education meeting, we had one thought: finally.
If there’s one view that seems universally accepted, it’s the notion public education is failing. It seems each year, there’s a new study reporting students in the United States can’t read as well as students in other nations; or that American students aren’t prepared for college-level work; or that students in the U.S. aren’t learning the important things they need to know to succeed.
And as accepted as that view is, the accompanying point that this is intolerable and must be corrected; that strengthening education is crucial to the economic survival of the nation; that “a mind is a terrible thing to waste” is embraced as forcefully.
So how come we’ve done so little to change the way we teach children?
The debates have been boiled down to money issues for political expediency, but there are many things that can be done to improve the quality of education in public schools, and finally finally the state is doing something about it.
We’re not saying the changes outlined by Superintendent of Schools Donald Burkhardt at last week’s board meeting are going to dramatically change the way schools work, but they may make some very noticeable and real improvements. Improvements that will likely do more for students’ performance that endless testing.
The biggest change will be the creation of an individual education plan for each student, a practice currently only undertaken for special needs students.
Within a few years, each New Jersey student will travel through schools with an accompanying plan designed to help educators understand how to best teach that student. The plan enables all of the students’ teachers to better understand what methods or approaches are effective for that student.
This means teachers will be able to quickly determine how to “customize” classrooms and lesson plans for their classes without having to observe the students for months. Teachers may be able to quickly alter an assignment to better help a student having a particular problem grasping a new concept.
Another change will delineate the class requirements needed for graduation. Instead of the more generalized credit requirements now specified by the state, such as four credits in English, future grads will have to complete specific classes in, say, literature and writing to meet the English credits.
None of the changes proposed are earth-shattering, but may well turn the tide in correcting the deficiencies we have in public education.
And, of course, none includes a consideration of how the costs of implementing the changes will be paid.
But if Americans truly believe schools are failing the students, and truly believe it’s an issue of national security, then we have to begin somehow.
Perhaps, finally, we’re getting around to talking about what can be done to teach students better, and to give students better direction for improving their own educational experiences.

