Red State Rabble finds it fascinating that those on the right who rail against multiculturalism --aka religious, racial, and ethnic tolerance -- are for the Balkanization of the nation's school system.One of the most powerful arguments for the public school system - that it helps create a common American identity - is something that ought to appeal to conservatives. At other times, they worry about Muslim schools in the U.S. and Europe that let immigrants avoid assimilating into the larger culture. Why, then, are they so often down on public schools?
"Parental choice" otherwise known as vouchers will encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in Kansas. Our country was built on our ability to unify a diverse population around common goals, and the public education system has been a key player in that process.
It must be defended.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
American culture and the schools
Andrew J. Coulson of the Cato Institute has proposed settling the Intelligent Design debate by abolishing public schools. He's not the first conservative to do so. Red State Rabble comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Because all of them, even the good ones, suck. Our American equalitarianism won't allow for quality public schools, because the idea of sending kids of various abilities to different classrooms pisses people off. The workload they give is pathetic, and some parents complain about that! There's always a low-level resentment of the Gifted Kids program. The bad ones, contrary to creating a common american identity, are key players in leaving black people in the ghetto, and leaving a signgificant swatch of the population with the Playskool intellectual toolbox. And public schools trap everyone together; the kid who really wants to learn is getting hobbled by the kid who hates school and is glad to show it. Basically, the common american identity stuff can go throw itself out the window. I'd rather have kids who can read.
I can't speak for all American schools, but I was pretty satisfied with my high school experience. The accelerated math program allowed myself and many others to take two semesters of calculus at the school, and after I did that a year before most people, I was allowed to take time off from school to take a third semester at UW-Oshkosh (Oshkosh being my home town). I got to spend three years with a top-notch Spanish teacher. I got the physics needed to understand the advanced introductory chem class I'm taking right now (if advanced "intro sounds" like an confusing, it's 116 in place of the usual 103 or 108).
On the other hand, after talking to some people in my chem class, I'm rather envious of their public high schools, which did even better for gifted kids than mine.
hallq,
I don't think anon is especially concerned with how well the "G&T" (as they/we were called were I grew up) are taught. Rather, those of more middling abilities are lumped in with those of below-average capacities, and due to the modern trend of avoiding anything which could negatively impact self-esteem, instruction proceeds at a lowest-common-denominator pace. At least that's the argument. Without firsthand knowledge, I can't really make a pronouncement either way, but it certainly seems plausible.
Or, to put it in shorter terms, I don't think your experience is neccesarily representative of "the American highschool experience."
I am the anonymous commenter from before.
Well it seems like a lot of high schools basically let get a couple of years of college done... which would have been great for me. This was not so much available at my school.
In any case, the advance of AP is great and all--- but doesn't that speak to how sad the state of the normal classes is, that a student, even a smart one, could just skip ahead 3 grades without a problem?
I remember something Carl Sagan wrote about the amount of homework the average kid did a week. (Demon Haunted World) Korean kids did 33 hours, americans-4 or 5. I believe that most Americans don't even grasp what a good education is anymore. Then the people who go into advanced fields go through intense training in college or graduate school. We have a pretty kick ass university system. I just think that modeling the primary and secondary schools after that would be a great idea. What seperates a university from a HS is, in my opinion, is choice. A university sucks, no one goes. Nobody has to pay double to go to a different school. The localized nature of the public school market, so to speak, means that there has to be a multiple smaller schools competing against each other. There would be some cultural balkanization, yes, but its the educational system, not the socialization system. I think we can rely on pop culture, college, and other forces to take up the slack. I'm very uncomfortable with sacrificing people's education and intellect at the altar of some supposed higher good, especially one like social cohesion. In any case, I suspect the consequences of our inadequate educational system are going to cause serious social stress, as the victims of it discover that with no education they're up shit creek without a paddle, and that there kids are there too. The days when a strong back and a slow mind was enough to get along are coming to an end, especially given the lifestyle that americans want.
P.S. The amount of funding going to schools has doubled in the last 15 years. Little to no improvement. It's not the money, its the methods used, and frankly the nature of any government enterprise to become tied down, apathetic, and unable to change.
P.P.S. The public school system is economically stratified. If anything, vouchers would lessen that impact by freeing poor people from geohraphic traps and rich people flooding the "good school" districts and jacking up prices. Same thing for ethnic stratification. The only one where they have a point is religious strtatification... which would actually work to reduce the economic/ethnic differences in a lot of cases.
I think what this is really about is that a lot of leftists associate private schools with religious schools, and see this as an insidious plot to desecularize the country.
Which is an argument to make, but it only makes it clearer that the pro-public school people are arguing to advance their political agenda, not because of concern for the quality of education that kids are recieving, or even the racist effects of the current system. Anyone who can look at the inner city schools and not figure that any alternative is superior to the one in place is, well, a true believer.
toxic,
I think you're mis-projecting the effect of free-marketing education. It would simply shift the gains from "good schools" from geographic areas to talent/reputation. The "good" schools will have more applicants, so simple laws of supply and demand will allow charges on top of the voucher amount. These higher prices will allow higher teacher salaries which will (duh) attract 'better' teachers, which in turn increases the demand for students to be able to attend those schools. Whether this is a good thing, I take no position at this time, (what's the point of having money if you can't buy things, like good education for your children, with it?) But to say that privatizing schools helps poor people is a crock.
Let me amend slightly. Privatizing/de-regulating schools may raise the overall quality of education, and this in turn may allow poor people access to 'better' education in an absolute sense, but almost certainly not in relative terms.
It seems to me that the single easiest thing to do to improve the quality of public education is to raise teacher salaries. Instead of adding on bureaucracy, why not just give that money to the educators? (Tenure would probably have to be weakened as well, but that's a whole other issue.) But that's a political argument and not really germane here.
You have a point, but I think its too far to call it a crock. If you assume that the money being spent by public schools has the same educational effect as a private dollar, then perhaps your analysis is correct. But I'd submit that the exact opposite is true, and that even having two schools fighting for a 4000 dollar voucher would lead to massive improvements in the quality of education, especially in areas where a large part of the population is discipline. Also, being a private organization, it wouldn't have so many legal problems with discipline. It's basically the anti-trust analysis--- because MA Bell doesn't have any competition, she charges a lot and doesn't really feel any need to provide good service. Bust her up, and bam--- 10 years later you've phone companies slitting each others throats for the pleasure of giving you 4 cents a minute long distance. A government enforced monopoly on education is bound to lead to mediocre results. At best.
Pooh, I am not even remotely concerned with relative levels of education. Only absolute. The thought of some rich kids getting really really awesome educations does not even begin to bother me. And now we should keep public schools because it compresses not-so-rich and poor into the same mediocrity? Er... nein, herr marx, nein.
Toxic, fair point, both on the public vs. private dollars dichotomy (of course private dollars will be more efficient. They aren't earmarked.), and the absolute/relative point. Allow me to restate and say that I'm CERTAIN that the relative disparity will increase, and am not sanguine on the prospect of much meaningful improvement as to the absolute improvement over the lowest rung on the educational ladder.
That being said, you should be concerned about relative education. The market for getting into colleges is competitive. So is the job market. If poorer children grow up 'better' educated but even 'less educated' relative to the affluent these days, how are they better off than they are now? How will this be the panacea for unequal opportunity that education is purported to be?
As to the Ma Bell analogy, its ok so far as it goes. However, telephone service is largely a commodity, whereas education has much more of a quality component.
Hallq,
Sorry for hijacking your blog...
Education, IMHO, is not a relative benefit. It is an absolute benefit, both to the holder and society, regardless of where the person is on the bell curve of education. And I totally reject the idea that some people should be kneecapped so others won't fall behind. Ever read Harrison Bergeron? It may sound nice at first glance, but at heart it is a nasty and destructive idea.
I think it mischaracterizes my argument to say I'm advocating "kneecapping" certain groups. If it was a binary choice between the status quo and a solution which greatly increased overall education, but increased it much more for those already better off, I'd pick the latter. However, I don't think the choice is that simple. If you're asking would I sacrifice some overall absolute improvement in the name of increased equity, then I would have to answer yes I would. Else opportunity is determined by the lottery of who your parents are (above and beyond simple genetics). Yes, the exceptional cases will always succeed, but we have to be concerned with the median as well, don't we?
I agree with you that education has an absolute component. But you have to acknowledge that there are some aspects which require a relative analysis don't you? Reasonable people can certainly differ on how much weight to give to maximizing each aspect, but ignoring the competitve impacts is, IMO, shortsighted.
Well as to the competitive impact--- when high schools are graduating people who can barely read and do math, I really don't think that the competitive edge is terribly relevant. First, the rich kids are already going to private schools, or could if they wanted to. In any case, they tend to group around the best public schools in a virtuous cycle as the tax base increases with them. Poor school districts experience the same thing but as a vicious cycle. 2nd, you seem to be assuming that the only path people can take is to go to a 4 year university and then to a college degree job. This isn't so. Most people, in fact, do something else, and would continue to do something else, like technical schools, community colleges, etc... or simply joining the workforce. They do that because college isn't for everyone. Spending 4 years in classes doesn't appeal to lots of people. They would benefit from a solid education, and could hardly be harmed by the fact that others got an even better education. A solid educational base is key to getting the opportunities that lead to a decent life.
Secondly, you are arguing that the enforced mediocrity of the current system has something to do with competition by making the median less skilled. If anything it hurts the lower end of the median; because all the real learning going on is done in college, technical schools, and college classes in high schools. Leaving a significant chunk of the population functionally illiterate doesn't increase their competitive advantage, even in comparision to the rest of the populace. Most public schools are adequate. But the worst are truly horrible. Virtually any alternative is superior. At the very least experimentation in the real world should be done to see what happens. So far the real world results are positive.
Also, opportunity IS a lottery. I'm from a family of small, but pretty successful businesmen. I was born on 1st, possibly 2nd base. From the perspective of a lot of people, maybe 3rd base. The expectations I absorbed as child molded my expectations of what I could achieve, and the circumstances of my birth determined that I would have the resources to accomplish these goals much more easily than someone born addicted to crack. Each person's fortune is determined by a lottery; the circumstances of their birth and the genes they inherit play a powerful role in determining who we are. Trying to fight that simple fact is futile and destructive.
Good points, especially on the multiple tracks one can take. One quibble. I'm not necc. arguing FOR the current system, I'm more arguing against full-on privitization and free-marketing of elementary and secondary education.
Post a Comment