Governor Tim Pawlenty certainly emphasized education reform in his State of the State speech last week. The Governor observed that Minnesota students, when compared to other students around the globe, are on top academically in 4th grade; about average by 8th grade; and, near the bottom after high school graduation.
In Minneapolis, for example, nearly half of all students don’t even graduate from High School. There are many reasons for this, including broken homes, poverty, immigration and language issues, single parent families, drug use, etc.
But, how much does the structure of public school itself contribute to such results?
Craig Westover, an opinion writer for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, wrote a thought-provoking article this week discussing Education “Reform”.
Westover asks,
“If we don’t someday tackle the ‘why’ question, we’re doomed to that never-ending cycle of Fad-to-Fancy education policy. Education ‘reform’ … is less about what we do and more about how we decide to do what we do. Real reform is about doing things differently - not simply doing different things.”
Another way of phrasing the issue is, ” will spending more money on the same system, yield different results? ”
Governor Pawlenty said that our existing high schools are “obsolete”. Bill Gates (of Microsoft) agrees. Well, if they are, then how did they get that way and what can we do differently.
The Governor wants to create financial incentives for high schools to offer more rigorous courses. He wants students to be able to complete at least one year of college while still in high school. For many students this is possible. For about half of all students, it’s not! (See this interesting Article by Charles Murray on ability to succeed in college).
Whenever the State, or especially the Federal Government, start setting standards, local districts lose the ability to be flexible and offer what students need and want. The goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) may be well intentioned, but really won’t accomplish greater learning if the existing public school system implements it.
When I was in high school in the 1960’s, we didn’t have mandated state standards like today. Schools did a pretty good job of educating back then. What was different?
Well, for one thing, parents were more involved in their child’s education, and most families were intact. Teachers had time to teach and students came to school more prepared to learn. Today, Teachers are asked to do so much more than just teach. It’s a demanding job when you also have to be a disciplinarian, social worker, and surrogate parent for many students. The culture of our schools, and society itself, is different.
There was also more school choice. Back then, about 19% of all students went to private, mostly parochial, schools. This was possible because Churches subsidized their schools. Today, only about 9% of students attend private schools. Many families simply cannot afford private school tuition.
Many of our top students, the gifted and talented, are losing out. We spend so much on special education, and standardized coursework, that our brightest students are bored and underachieving. (See another interesting Article by Charles Murray). We spend about 0.01% of our educational dollars on the brightest students. In a few more years, we may not produce enough engineers, scientists, and doctors to compete with the rest of the world.
Perhaps we need to redefine what a “public” education is. Isn’t it in the public interest to “provide challenging, diverse, and innovative education opportunities to all students. Shouldn’t all students and families have a choice to pick the school that is best for them? Wouldn’t school choice bring about the creation of such schools?”
As Craig Westover states,
“You want accountability? Encourage parental school choice so the impact of failing to educate kids is felt immediately at the local level.”
I encourage your comments.
