- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
Much has recently been made of the importance of improving education in the United States, with proposals ranging from President Bush's "no child left behind" initiative, to school voucher programs and "parental choice" options. Lawsuits have been filed across the nation concerning inequities in funding between school districts within a state, leading to complex systems to redistribute funds, even as there is decreasing evidence that throwing more money into failing systems will make any difference. Students are endlessly tested and evaluated. Teachers and schools are graded and regulated. The situation has gotten to the point that very few citizens even question the federalization of what have traditionally been local or at most state decisions on schools.
I dare to propose that the underlying problem has little to do with money, and that no number of new federal mandates or new testing or new teacher requirements will make any difference in our childrens' learning. I propose that we need radically to change the underlying philosophy of education in the United States. We must recognise that we do not live in an educational Lake Wobegone, and that, despite parents' beliefs, not all children are "above average". We must recognise that to allow the average and above average students to progress, some children must be left behind. We must abandon a false egalitarianism so that all students may progress to the best of their abilities, though not all to the current supposed "grade level".
My Proposal:
All students start with equal opportunity. Kindergarten and early elementary education would change little. Things would start to shake around elementary grade 3 with a gradual stratification of performance levels, dividing students initially into 3 levels based on academic performance. Higher achieving students - average students - underachieving students. Each term there would be opportunity for promotion/demotion between levels. As grades progress, there would be a further division into as many as 5 levels. Each group would advance at its own pace, with slower students no longer holding back the average and faster students able to push on ahead. Again, opportunity for movement between levels as students show either ability to move up or need to move down. Around grade 9 (3d year secondary) there would be a transition to vocational/technical training emphasis for lower levels as upper levels are moved into college preparatory. This system allows our best students to progress at a pace far beyond what they are now permitted. It allows our average students still to receive a quality education. It lets even the slowest students progress at a pace beyond what they can today, since they would be instructed at a level they can maintain, rather than being forced to try to keep up with a class average beyond their abilities.
The obvious weakness I see in this proposal is the unwillingness of parents to admit that their precious little one might actually be below average in ability or application. Anyone who has seen Mommy and Daddy screaming at a teacher who dared give little Johnny or Janie the failing grade they deserved for not doing assigned work will know whereof I speak. Nonetheless, I sincerely think this proposal gives all students an opportunity to learn at their own highest level.
Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?
I dare to propose that the underlying problem has little to do with money, and that no number of new federal mandates or new testing or new teacher requirements will make any difference in our childrens' learning. I propose that we need radically to change the underlying philosophy of education in the United States. We must recognise that we do not live in an educational Lake Wobegone, and that, despite parents' beliefs, not all children are "above average". We must recognise that to allow the average and above average students to progress, some children must be left behind. We must abandon a false egalitarianism so that all students may progress to the best of their abilities, though not all to the current supposed "grade level".
My Proposal:
All students start with equal opportunity. Kindergarten and early elementary education would change little. Things would start to shake around elementary grade 3 with a gradual stratification of performance levels, dividing students initially into 3 levels based on academic performance. Higher achieving students - average students - underachieving students. Each term there would be opportunity for promotion/demotion between levels. As grades progress, there would be a further division into as many as 5 levels. Each group would advance at its own pace, with slower students no longer holding back the average and faster students able to push on ahead. Again, opportunity for movement between levels as students show either ability to move up or need to move down. Around grade 9 (3d year secondary) there would be a transition to vocational/technical training emphasis for lower levels as upper levels are moved into college preparatory. This system allows our best students to progress at a pace far beyond what they are now permitted. It allows our average students still to receive a quality education. It lets even the slowest students progress at a pace beyond what they can today, since they would be instructed at a level they can maintain, rather than being forced to try to keep up with a class average beyond their abilities.
The obvious weakness I see in this proposal is the unwillingness of parents to admit that their precious little one might actually be below average in ability or application. Anyone who has seen Mommy and Daddy screaming at a teacher who dared give little Johnny or Janie the failing grade they deserved for not doing assigned work will know whereof I speak. Nonetheless, I sincerely think this proposal gives all students an opportunity to learn at their own highest level.
Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?
Facebook
Twitter