Questions on education

Yesterday, some friends and I discussed early childhood education. Is it better to have students learn alphabets, spelling, and numbers or is it better for them to learn manners and good social conduct? Are spelling and grammar important early childhood education material or should they be eschewed for other more creative content?

One shared her friend’s experiences in Canada, where the child was allowed to write any type of spelling: The teachers argued that these children would correct their own spelling when they grew up and that what was more important was to let them write unimpeded. What they were taught instead, at 7 or 8, is to write a short script or a letter. We reminisced that we learned these only when we were about 14 to 15. Clearly, children have advanced and our notions of education also must change.

Then you also have Japan and Finland where education is not the be-all, end-all that it is in many countries. Social values are taught at an early age or the children are allowed to connect with nature more, over learning in the strict sense. This seems to help raise more rounded people.

In Sri Lanka, we have an added concern of culture. This amorphous concept decides whether or not we provide sex ed. The argument has been raging for about 30 years without a solution in sight. Added to that, the usual concern of history and nation-building, we are in a bit of a bind. Also, the syllabi change quite infrequently. (Although that might be better than the annual changes that US teachers have to contend with.)

The question, then, is how do we plan a nation’s education policy?

Subquestions are: What discourses could we agree to? At which point should we update the policy? What is the review process? Who should be part of that process? How can we decide which approach would serve future generations best?