There's a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic, January-February 2008 edition, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education) by Matt Miller. He argues that to create a competitive educational system in this country, we need to do what other countries do that are most successful at educating their populations: Establish national standards and proficiencies, and let go of local and state control of schools entirely, which he blames for the dreadful state of America's schools today. He suggests we abolish local school boards, though acknowledges advocating for this is an uphill battle at best.
He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."
This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.
Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.
There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.
In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:
"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."
"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."
Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?
I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
On the other hand, No Child Left Behind nationalized some education policy, and it's a steaming pile of crap that hasn't helped at all.
Comment left without reading the article.
Dennis -- Yeah. I thought of that, but I wonder if it's because it's just a piece of "requirement" tossed out into a vacuum, without the rest of the puzzle pieces? Read the article when you have time. I'll be curious what you think.
You're right about NCLB. It was not a very positive piece of legislation.
I think NCLB is a good piece of legislation it just is not funded like many program s dictated from Washington D.C. It focuses on trying to raise the achievement of the students but doesn't specify how to do so. This gives local control over the student population. Locals know their clients better than a bureacrat from a national government. The real problem is no funding. As to comparing the U.S. to other countries, this is not possible. Other countries severely restrict who can get an education. That is the primary reason their scores are so much higher than U.S. scores.
If you want us to say that 50% of children will not be allowed to attend a college or university then you can get the results that other countries obtain. Children are tracked by race, parentage, and ability. This makes selecting the best easy. In our system we try to give all the opportunity to show what they can achieve. What really makes the U.S. best is this attempt at educating all and not the best. Maybe our scores are not the best but we still lead the world in innovation and developing new industries. Although we quickly lose the advantage by countries that take their cheap workforce and small percentage of highly skilled workers to improve the breakthrough and sell it for less.
I think if we would fully fund the goals of NCLB(100s of billions of dollars) we would achieve a better system. But then we still would be hampered by the lack of desire and the freedom we give to people to not achieve. As long as we support those who choose not to work at their lives, we will always have problems.
Interesting comment with lots to ponder. So you are saying the top-scoring countries don't work to educate the masses, as we do. I wonder if there are any exceptions.
I can recall being in a graduate school statistics class too many years ago, when a fellow student from China, I believe, stunned our professor by completing some major statistical calculation in her head. The rest of us were still trying to figure out how to do it with calculators and what the result would even signify. You could assume we were all bottom-of-the-barrel grad students, except the prof gave her several additional calculatings to run and she did them correctly in her head as well. He could not get his mind around how she could do these: She insisted that in her country all students were routinely taught to this level. Now maybe she came from some exclusive college in China, I don't know. But it seems significant that our professor was incredulous.
It would be interesting to do some reading in this area. It sounds like maybe you have.
Certainly social and cultural mores also are major players in this issue, as you indicate.
The article cited does propose federal funding to accompany federal standards, goals and curricula.
Anonymous said, "But then we still would be hampered by the lack of desire and the freedom we give to people to not achieve. As long as we support those who choose not to work at their lives, we will always have problems."
What about the role educators in motivating and inspiring? I would maintain that most people who "choose not to work at their lives" are discouraged, depressed and/or lacking any belief in their ability to succeed.
Teachers can't successfully reach all these students, as parents and society have major roles to play....but I think education DOES involve inspiring and working to find ways to help students motivate, see a way past barriers and believe in their potential.
Ok, call me a bleeding-heart liberal.
IE-
Teachers in the high school have 70 minutes to influence the life of the student. They can reach some but others are more distracted by their family than what the teacher can change. A notice came around last week where a student was being pulled from school for 10 days because his single mom was leaving town. Teachers can't change that. The influences outside of school go much further than family. The highly inspiring teacher is not possible in every location. You need more than just the teacher. As a teacher they can't change the dynamic of the student going to work because they have been told for years that education doesn't matter. The whole debate about welding is a case in point. If you talked to major employers in the field, they would tell you that the level of skill they want in welding is not much above the basics. They want someone who can read, demonstrate people and work skills, and problem solve. All of which Mr. Robinson has focused some effort on. NCLB focuses on improving these skills. The major problem is funding.
Post a Comment