How I’d change compulsory education

Most people would agree that today’s compulsory education systems are not great. I think there are some things that just don’t make sense (do we really need to be graded for gym class?) while others are omitted despite being quite important (basic personal finance skills, for example).

While I don’t have a comprehensive thesis on how to change education, I’ve thought about it a fair bit and have some ideas that I will share in today's post.

(Note: I have no formal training in early childhood education, so I think my ideas would only be suitable for students who have developed mentally and physically to an extent where they can follow guidance and engage in some self-directed learning.)

Military/survival training

I think it makes sense for all able-bodied students to have basic self-discipline and survival skills. There’s basically no downside to learning how to keep to a strict schedule and work well in a group under high pressure situations, or acquiring skills such as swimming, starting a fire, tying rope, building a simple shelter, and so on.

"Life skills" training

I think compulsory education should cover basic communication skills such as presenting in front of a group or conducting a negotiation. It should also cover personal finance skills and typing skills, and the methodology for undertaking research or self-directed learning.

Electives at earlier ages

I never understood why we needed to wait until high school to get the opportunity to choose what we wanted to study.

Aside from a basic understanding of mathematics and the scientific method, I think there’s at least some argument against making any other academic subjects mandatory. We’re not going to be intellectually crippled if we choose to not learn history, or geography, or medieval literature, or biology.

Replace assessments prior to high school with projects

I also never understood why compulsory education required so much assessment at the primary or middle school level. For high achievers, there are nationwide competitions through which they can distinguish themselves. For the average students, is there really any need to rank them based on their ability to memorize and regurgitate knowledge?

Instead, why not provide students with sufficient time to explore or build things they’re interested in? By doing this, all students will have a body of work to demonstrate by the time they graduate. Such a "portfolio" could be far more valuable for actually determining a student's interests and potential in a particular field.

Gamify the learning experience

Games are known to stimulate learning. I love games and I work in education, so my mind is overflowing with ideas in this space.

For example, individual students could have learning progress trees where they can choose one or more tracks that they want to pursue in standard subjects such as math, chemistry or history. Khan Academy has implemented an online and completely automated version of this. However, I'd also incorporate some guidance from teachers and add specially designed offline trials that students can overcome to gain levels and unlock further progress.

Groups of students could participate in academic decathlon tournaments, which with the right design and promotion could become a popular spectator sport.

Incorporate some one-on-one instruction

It's definitely suboptimal for compulsory education in most countries to completely omit one-on-one instruction in favor of classroom teaching. The main obstacle with individual tutoring is its excessive cost, since more manpower would then be needed for classroom management while the tutoring takes place.

With the advent of AI and other technologies, it may be possible to automate classroom management and most information-based learning, freeing up teachers to offer more one-on-one guidance to students.