You raise an interesting challenge for future generations but I wonder about the premise. Most of what I have read here is a doubling of effort of what schools already try to do, and your characterization of education sounds like a strawman.
"We are running an educational system optimized for producing workers"
Are we? How do you determine this? K-12 education from my view is not typically structured as a jobs program. To the extent it is coldly outcome-focused, it is for reading and math. But there is community-building in the form of youth sports and other after-school programs. Social-emotional learning is an entire category of curriculum that schools attempt to incorporate to develop the whole person.
"Everyone needs formation — cultivation within a community that has genuine standards of excellence,"
What if I don't want to be excellent? Perhaps I find meaning in the mundane. This seems to be imposing values that are not widely shared.
"Serious engagement with the Western intellectual tradition, practiced through genuine Socratic dialogue rather than lecture or passive consumption, forms people differently than conventional education does — more capable of sustained argument, more comfortable with difficulty and ambiguity, more oriented toward the common questions of civic life than the private acquisition of credentials."
Teacher education today does not prioritize lecture or passive consumption. "Student-centered" has been a buzzword for decades. Again this feels like a bit of a strawman. Are you familiar with IB programs? Or any other inquiry-driven educational programs. Again very common today.
"Only 44% of middle and highschoolers are reading at grade level. I have considered pivoting entirely to teen literacy"
It seems like you have come to realize yourself that 'wait a minute, these kids can't even read. I need to solve for that first.' Which is basically the conclusion educators have reached. It is conveniently both measurable and a prerequisite for finding meaning
You raise an interesting challenge for future generations but I wonder about the premise. Most of what I have read here is a doubling of effort of what schools already try to do, and your characterization of education sounds like a strawman.
"We are running an educational system optimized for producing workers"
Are we? How do you determine this? K-12 education from my view is not typically structured as a jobs program. To the extent it is coldly outcome-focused, it is for reading and math. But there is community-building in the form of youth sports and other after-school programs. Social-emotional learning is an entire category of curriculum that schools attempt to incorporate to develop the whole person.
"Everyone needs formation — cultivation within a community that has genuine standards of excellence,"
What if I don't want to be excellent? Perhaps I find meaning in the mundane. This seems to be imposing values that are not widely shared.
"Serious engagement with the Western intellectual tradition, practiced through genuine Socratic dialogue rather than lecture or passive consumption, forms people differently than conventional education does — more capable of sustained argument, more comfortable with difficulty and ambiguity, more oriented toward the common questions of civic life than the private acquisition of credentials."
Teacher education today does not prioritize lecture or passive consumption. "Student-centered" has been a buzzword for decades. Again this feels like a bit of a strawman. Are you familiar with IB programs? Or any other inquiry-driven educational programs. Again very common today.
"Only 44% of middle and highschoolers are reading at grade level. I have considered pivoting entirely to teen literacy"
It seems like you have come to realize yourself that 'wait a minute, these kids can't even read. I need to solve for that first.' Which is basically the conclusion educators have reached. It is conveniently both measurable and a prerequisite for finding meaning