The author seems to be mainly arguing in favor of focusing on traditional literacy. The point isn't how much time or effort is spent on a topic, but the way in

The author seems to be mainly arguing in favor of focusing on traditional literacy. The point isn't how much time or effort is spent on a topic, but the way in which it's taught. Many of the countries doing better than the US in literacy have their students in school less that the US over their primary and secondary school careers. (At 180 days * 6.7 hours a day[2], the US would hit ~ 1200, vs the 960 hr / year average for OECD countries, and many fewer for some of the top countries[1]). The difference is in the way subjects are taught. As many people learn through many different ways, and are inspired to learn by many different topics, we should be encouraging schools to increase the number of subjects we teach, not limit them. It would only make sense, then, to offer classes in algorithmic math or integrating coding and art classes, to offer further opportunities to discover new ideas and expand kids' minds. Edit: fixed US hours 1: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48631122.pdf http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48631122.... 2: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table_15.asp http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table_15.asp