A basic question for any reform proposal is how it functions at various levels of adoption. Some might do well if implemented throughout a state, but fail for any smaller entity that acted outside of the state's protocols. Others might need acceptance by a swathe of the public outside government as well, such as among employers, while others might only require a school dedicated to them, etc. Such smaller scale ideas might primarily be better ways of meeting district-wide instrumental values, and as such not provide too much benefit over the status quo if implemented.
I think you should clarify your words to explain exactly what you mean.. Tell us what your ideal national education system would look like, but if so, please refrain from advocating for it. Tell us your plan to improve your life, granted the system you find yourself in. Tell us how and why you influence others, and how you would hope to run a private charter school, or home-school your children, if you like. Just keep the scope clear so I know what you mean.
It's not just for me though, one wants to be sure that one isn't suggesting something that would only be rational in ideal circumstances, e.g. if no one stole other people's stuff, society could save a lot of effort that currently goes towards security. Therefore, I will not buy a padlock for my gym locker, nor bother to lock my front door, etc.
In school we learn wonderful things like how to find integrals, solve equations, and how to calculate valence electrons of elements based on their atomic numbers. Because, obviously, they will be very important in our futures -- especially if we become artists, musicians, writers, actors, and business people.
We learn so much in school. Yet, when most people look at paintings they don’t truly understand them. When most people listen to music, they don’t really know what they’re hearing. Most people would fail simple music theory tests, even though many have listened to music most days of the week since they were babies!
Similarly, if you have working eyes, you should ask “Why do shadows look like they do? What color is snow, really? Can I predict the colors of different colored materials at different times of the day? If not, why? I have been seeing them for years, haven’t I?”
I think the problem here is that people can’t understand what is really important. Calculus, mechanical physics, chemistry, microiology, etc. are interesting to learn, perhaps. But, they are relatively advanced topics. People don’t use them in daily life unless they are professionals. Why not learn things that we think about every day instead of those that will frankly be useless to most?
Why don’t we learn how to understand our senses?
Learning about sight, sounds, thoughts, etc. should fit in somewhere in the first year of high school. Everyone needs to learn the physics of art and color (e.g. this and this), music theory, rationality, and logic.
For example, why should people start learning (or pretending to learn) philosophy, the art of thinking, in college? Should we be able to make life-changing decisions without even knowing how to spot errors in our thinking?
As a science researcher, I know first hand how hard it is to find a good balance between being well versed in worldly topics and being focused on a field in order to excel in it. But, both of these areas of study should not be called the true basics, in my opinion.
As president of my school's philosophy club, I took a different approach to teaching the basics of philosophy and thinking than traditional classes do. Instead of asking students to discuss the lives and ideas of famous Greek philosophers, I asked them to analyze their own lives and make their own philosophies. As expected, they were terrible at it at first. But, by the end of the year people began to actually think about the world around them.
So, my point is that we should -- in life and in school -- emphasize actual everyday thinking more.
The biggest challenge is that it takes so long!