I feel like the writer doesn't fully understand how deep some of the flaws in our educational system can run. Take, for example, the section on collaboration which hints only at educator behavior influencing students to exclude others. There are so many other factors that would cause a child to segregate and organize themselves into cliques, and as much as our educators may impact the social structure of the students, the behaviors of parents, guardians, caretakers, and other adults in a student's life play just as important a role in their development, especially if students spend more time with them than their teachers. This issue extends beyond the scope of our education system and is not easily remedied through changes in the institution. Some of these habits may not be fixable.
This isn't to say the article doesn't raise good points, especially that elementary and early school years should focus more on developing social skills than academic ones. However it fails to assess how varied children can be in terms of background, home life, opportunity, and development. Would it be fair to assess a student to whom English is a second language on the same scale as one that grew up in an English speaking country? Can we compare a student on the autistic spectrum with a socially and verbally mature student? The author makes these topics seem simpler than they actually are, and that hurts the message that they're trying to get across.
good points, especially that elementary and early school years should focus more on developing social skills than academic ones.
I hold that United States schools are stultifyingly boring for a great many pupils, because the lessons are too easy,[1] and as a consequence many pupils languish in their social development because they are not allowed the opportunity to pursue development of knowledge and skill while engaged in group work at school. One reason I think this is that I know a whole country, where my wife grew up, where most school pupils were instructed in school in a second language that they didn't speak at home[2] and where the school lessons were much more challenging. That seemed to produce better social results than have ever been found in United States schools.
[2] My wife is part of the majority population of Taiwan in her generation that grew up speaking Taiwanese at home but was only permitted to speak Mandarin at school. (Mandarin is approximately as different from Taiwanese as English is from German, or as Spanish is from French.) The school lessons in Taiwan were, and are, much more ambitious in promoting deep thinking than United States lessons are, and include a mandatory requirement to begin studying high-school-level algebra and geometry by seventh grade--even for below-average pupils. Oh, and of course school pupils all over the world begin study of modern foreign languages--usually English--by much earlier ages than most pupils in United States schools, even if they are going to school in a second language, as many school pupils do in many countries. United States schools are too wimpy academically to fully develop young people socially.
Yes, in my experience elementary school was hellishly boring, but I believe that comes from them being focused on teaching mechanical processes, such as the times table, rather than thought processes. In that way it'd be just as beneficial to a student's social faculties to teach critical thinking as critical thinking would benefit from the teaching of social skills. Having to simultaneously master another language provides students with a direct method of developing their communication skills and requires them to better rationalize their thoughts, so naturally it would foster better social habits.
To also touch on one of your notes, I also think that the United States is slow in teaching foreign language, and exposure to other cultures and languages would help to dispel the myth in American culture that the U.S. is the center of the universe. Perhaps American schools should start teaching only in Mandarin as well. :p
This isn't to say the article doesn't raise good points, especially that elementary and early school years should focus more on developing social skills than academic ones. However it fails to assess how varied children can be in terms of background, home life, opportunity, and development. Would it be fair to assess a student to whom English is a second language on the same scale as one that grew up in an English speaking country? Can we compare a student on the autistic spectrum with a socially and verbally mature student? The author makes these topics seem simpler than they actually are, and that hurts the message that they're trying to get across.