February 23, 2012
-
Education
I notice the US school system problems - both perceived and real - once again being raised in the current political debates. Since education was my life's work, I think I can comment on some of the issues with a little expertise.
Much has been said about how federal intervention in local schools is a bad thing. It's my experience that such intervention has mostly been monetary. I, for example, got to attend a couple of NDEA summer institutes which were most helpful in my teaching. they were not "How to teach this" time wasters, but rather loaded with info from real experts - face to face - in their subjects (The two I attended were on the position of the US in World Affairs and US relations with the Non-Western World) As I was teaching those subjects, it was nice to have the opportunity to meet and hear from world-class experts in interesting environments (World Bank, UN, various embassies, etc).
Of course, when the feds contribute, they want the school systems to meet at least minimum standards. the same is true of state aid to local school districts. In modern times, most states have tried to assure at least minimum standards and most have taken over the basic financing of local systems. In every case,however, the local school boards set policies and deal with teacher contracts. All states have minimum teacher certification requirements.
The most pressing problem with US education seems to be the outcome. We are not satisfied with the educational results - our graduates don't seem to be as well educated as we expect - or at least some of them are not. There are a number of solutions to this problem. We might hire more and better teachers - but this will cost a good deal more. For most of US history, education was subsidized by bright women who had few other employment opportunities, but this is no longer the case - now you get what you pay for. there are not many of us so dedicated to teaching that we are willing to sacrifice better financial opportunities.
Another suggestion is that we should focus on teaching those willing and able to be taught. the idea of "No child left behind"is a noble one, but all children are certainly not equally able or willing to learn as much or at the same rate.
Teaching each child effectively at an individualized rate is both expensive and difficult and so far we have shown little willingness to spend anywhere near the needed amount. The rise of interactive media may be a solution to this, but so far computer-focused education is used by only a very small fraction of educational systems, and at its present level of development, it has a great many problems in implementation.Teachers' Unions are a favorite whipping boy. Somehow we have decided that those who have dedicated their lives to teaching our kids are not interested in whether the kids learn, but in keeping their jobs. The idea that some protection from the vagaries of political domination might allow the teacher to do what he/she does best is seldom expressed. That, after all, is what tenure is all about - protecting the teachers so they can teach. Teaching is not an industrial occupation where you can measure effectiveness by the number of widgets produced. It is after all, a profession requiring advanced education and some skill. If you have sub-standard teaching, it's probably your fault for hiring the nitwit in the first place - but then at the salary offered, maybe that's all that you could get. All local systems I know of have a one to three year trial period where incompetent teachers can be weeded out. If there is a problem, it's more likely with the "weeders" than with the classroom teachers.
Other solutions offered include home-schooling and charter schools. Both of these alternatives have their own problems and neither has shown any particular advantage over more traditional schooling. Their main attraction seems to be that they are different - and thus must be better. Religious education and schooling varies widely and has the problem of being somewhat divisive in its outcome. Since one goal of education is (and should be) social integration, any system that does not include this aspect is questionable - but of course some of us like this idea.
Comments (2)
I would work an extra job and send my children to a private school.
@Colorsofthenight - In some cases, so would I - but remember private schools have little supervision and vary widely in their worth and effectiveness. One basic idea behind Charter Schools is that somehow they are private schools for the masses - locally controlled and with teachers who can do their own thing. In reality, most of them are owned and controlled by multi-state money-making corporations whose main interest is in grabbing some of your state's educational funding.
A good private school is generally very expensive