...I certainly would agree that as a country we should do a better job of education. But I think that often times we fail to take into account the cultural/societal flower that our forebears have planted that makes us such a creative, vibrant nation. There is a part of me that says we should be sure that whatever reforms we make in our schools, we don't kill our native, American form of intelligence by educating it into a European dessication.
I don't think that vouchers run any risk of doing that, but much other reform does concern me. The weekly drumbeat about self-esteem that comes from my daughter's school - forgetting that unearned self-esteem is nearly the defining feature of a criminal mind. The moronic whole language method of teaching reading. The unexamined assumption that more government involvement (non local) is a necessary part of the solution. Those things strike me as some of the potential poisons under consideration.
As an aside, I realize that some pundits and diplomats in Western Europe and the Middle East think we are the opposite of both things I am discussing - uneducated and stupid. They are the product of systems that provides an education lacking in a true, real world appreciation of the tradeoffs involved in action. One unstated premise in Neil's description is that education has a static aspect to it (facts don't change) while intelligence has a more active aspect (dealing with a complex world). Hence, the existence of the unintelligent educated pundit.
Mike has hit on one of my favorite themes; the difference between 'book smart' and 'street smart.' I deal with engineers all of the time, and am disturbed by the lack of practical knowledge they have. Many mechanical engineers don't even have a basic familiarity with mechanics tools, which shows when they design access covers, or calibration adjustments that are inaccessible, unless a special tool is created. The ability to process information, to gather and evaluate data, and to apply that information in a real world environment is crucial in everyday life.
The problem is that our schools aren't even giving our kids the basic tools they need to carry out these functions. Math knowledge is weak, which inhibits analysis of data, english skills are weak, which inhibits the ability to communicate knowledge effectively, and historical knowledge is practically non-existent, which denies the long term perspective needed to understand where we are and where we are headed. I think we can strengthen our curriculum significantly without our schools becoming arid wastelands of facts, with no soul.
Mike goes on to give some interesting ideas on directions for education reform:
- There's the old joke that college deans are supposed to tell. You have to be good to the A students, since they come back to be professors. You have to be good to B students, since they send their kids to the same college they attended. You have to be good to C students, since they become rich and give large grants to the college. Somehow, the last portion of the joke seems particularly American to me. Those students do get an education, but they are not wholly devoted to the process. Their minds end up sharpened in a way that pays the most dividends in the material world.
- How much do we want reform to be national - meaning the federal government directs - and how much do we want it to be local? With a national orientation, we really can standardize on the things that we should all know to be Americans. Should every 10th grader be able to recite the Declaration of Independence? Should every sixth grader be able to give a five sentence summary of events at Little Round Top? Can you possibly imagine a federal agency doing a good job of defining such things before the end of the universe?
- What is the state of our trade schools? It probably varies from trade to trade. College is not the appropriate goal for every 18 year old, but more training than is given in high school is valuable for many. Trade schools are private, I don't even know how well regulated they are. What lessons can be learned from them? Some folks have suggested that we allow non-college bound students to leave high school at 16 and attend trade schools. Do those become publicly funded? I don't really have a feel for these schools, but I think some scrutiny here can give us all some good information.
This last is one I'm really interested in. Right now, the only place to go for a good trades education is the military, or a union shop with a good apprenticeship training, or an overpriced, for-profit trade school like ITT. This is a disgrace. Let's fae it, not every kid needs or wants a college education. We spend so much time trying to get every kid ready for college that we wind up with a group of young adults who are prepped for college AND NOTHING ELSE! Vo-tech is not a bad word, although you would think it is when at high school.
I know a little about this. As I said earlier, I went to a college prep school. After washing out of college (A minor disagreement with my professors. I figured as long as I passed the tests, I didn't have to go to class. They disagreed.) I wound up working in a convenience store. I had no other skills. Oh, I could have sold vacuum cleaners door to door, a job which really sucks(sorry, couldn't resist), but I really had no saleable skills. I wound up going into the Navy (getting robbed at gunpoint for the $50 in the till has a way of bringing perspective to your life. I highly recommend it if you are having trouble finding your way in life) where I received technical training in electronics and nuclear reactor operations. (There's another comforting thought for you, convenience store night clerk to nuclear reactor operator in five easy lessons! What a country!)
Finally, Mike is interested in other comments on his ideas. You can e-mail him directly at the address above, or send your comments to me, and I'll publish them here.
