The following continues the education chapter from SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity:
What, Then?
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education formed the Commission on the Future of Education. However, the main task was for the group to recommend a national strategy for improving our universities, probably because 30 years ago, 30% of college students were in the U.S., versus the 14% of today. Of course, two corresponding charges were to provide guidelines on how high schools should prepare students for post-secondary education and, also, for the 21st century marketplace. Yet, in their first report on September 26, 2006, the Commission said they would be focusing on:
o Access (to universities).
o Affordability (for non-traditional students).
o Standards of quality in instruction.
o Accountability of institutions of higher learning to their constituencies.
So this Commission will not solve our K-12 (kindergarten through high school) public education system, which many say is the root of our problem. But, aha, this blue ribbon commission probably knows something that will become obvious by the end of this chapter. The punch line to this entire section comes then.
In 2005, Bill Gates, in a keynote address, told a meeting of governors and policy makers that our high schools were obsolete, and that they should be redesigned to meet the challenges of the new century. The crux of Gates’ argument was, though, that we should use better technology. He further advocated online courses. What would one expect from the Chairman of Microsoft? Who am I to chide the richest man in the world, but I think he only has part of the answer. Yes, the world is changing and technology with it, but the problem with our students is that they tend today to be too attached to computers, and online courses would only further separate them from other people.
“Our schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age. Until we design them to meet the needs of this century, we will keep limiting—even ruining—the lives of millions of Americans every year,” he further said. I agree with this statement, but, perhaps, not in the manner he perceives. Again, I’m being negative, but I do have a positive solution.
In December of 2006, the independent New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, partially composed of former congressional members, cabinet secretaries and state governors, and funded by private foundations, released their report, Tough Choices or Tough Times, a follow-up of sorts to Nation at Risk, the 1983 epistle which scared the country, but did not do much about improving K-12 education. This new Commission called for drastic revisions to school structure and raising teachers’ salaries up to $110,000. Chairman Charles Knapp, former president of the University of Georgia, said “the United States has one of the highest costs of education, but produces mediocre results.” A price of $60 billion was attached to the 15 year implementation plan, and the hope was to change laws, stimulate cultural shifts and alter political will. In a kind of insult, the report recommended recruiting future teachers from the top third of high school students rather than the bottom third. But, I guess this must be true of the present, else why would they so state? Said William Brock, former Secretary of Labor in the Reagan Administration: “This proposal is radical? Yes. Hard to achieve? Of course. Essential? Absolutely. Our nation’s schools are failing to educate our children, and that has to stop—else we condemn our own kids to even lower incomes. We must act—now!”
Strong language from a blue-ribbon and conscientious group charged with a monumental task. Like Nation at Risk, though, I can predict that nothing much will change in our educational system, but mostly because of the above (low budget priority, lack of involvement of parents, etc.) reasons, plus, maybe things are not all that bad, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment