Log In | Register
Over the past 40 years education in America has gone from an object of national pride to a subject of national disgrace. When viewed by several diverse measurements the U.S. has fallen from number 1 in student standing to between 20th and 30th in most surveys. How did this happen in less than two generations?
The reasons are multiple and the inevitable blame can be allotted to several sources. Part of the reason is that the rest of the world, both developed and developing countries, have created different, more functional, multi-faceted, educational systems than the U.S. has. Part of the reason is entirely home grown. The various attempts at integrating large numbers of diverse or disadvantaged minority populations into the broad main stream of the American educational system has often failed both the targeted populations and America as a whole. Another domestic aspect of the long standing trend toward poorer results is the dysfunctional systems of funding for education in the U.S.
The European and Asian countries which have had much greater success in their educational results have used several variations of the multiple track approach. Not every child in those systems is educated to the same degree and along the same lines. In primarily developing countries with large illiterate and/or rural populations the emphasis is almost entirely on teaching basic literacy and not much else. The better students can move on to broader educational opportunities, but the majority either ends their education before or at the high school level or continues in a vocational track in order to learn a trade. This creates a somewhat literate "peasant" class, a literate skilled and semi-skilled work force and some college ready students. In more developed countries the concept of tracks is still the operational norm. Some students get a general high school level education along with a good amount of vocational training in high and low tech areas, and some students get a college preparation level education and go on to university study and become professionals.
The advantage of a multi-track design is that it can accommodate a more diverse population of students successfully. Just as all children are not going to be great athletes, or singers, or artists due to a combination of natural ability and interest; not all students are going to be "rocket scientists" for the same reasons. An educational system that successfully serves all students will have opportunity for all students to pursue their schooling in cooperation with their abilities and interests. Such a system also well serves the society as a whole. All societies need workers, technicians, artists, and professionals at all levels; and a broadly balanced educational system will allow some students the opportunity to fill each of these niches.
The U.S. stands alone as a country where we try to fit all students into basically a "one size fits all" system of learning. We do have special programs for a very few students with unique or limited abilities, but the majority of students are required to learn the same material which is taught in pretty much the same manner throughout each local's educational system. The fragmenting of education along local area jurisdiction in itself creates great inconsistencies in the outcome of the schooling process. Same states rank much higher by measurement than others. And even within states, some populations have a large discrepancy in ranking. Some of this can be attributed to the discrepancy in amount of money spent in the district. But some can also be attributed to the curriculum differences. And some differences can be traced to the ways the money is spent as well as on what the money is spent.
Some districts are over staffed at the administration level. Some spend more on their band than they do on their science fair. Poor neighborhoods have a lot less money available for the infrastructure and materials than rich ones. Some schools encourage parent and community involvement, while others are run as little fiefdoms by an elitist administration. The list of local variables is long and an area of significant contention between different factions warring for control of the curriculum and budget. The many reasons that our current design for local control of schools creates problems and dysfunctional, failing educational system, can be largely eliminated by having a more national approach and plan for the nation's education. This doesn't mean a system that is unresponsive to local and parent input and desires. In fact a more modern, multi-tracked system designed to meet a more diverse set of student needs and abilities, could be much more able to satisfy the demands now made on schools.
It would also serve our national needs much better. A nationally based education system would be able to provide a more uniform set of criteria in each and every track, so that a student educated in the Southwest would have pretty much the same knowledge base as one from the Northeast or Midwest. In this day and age where one will very likely not work a lifetime in the place where they were born or educated; the ability to present a comparable skill and knowledge set anywhere in this country will be an asset for an employee at every level. If our academic students all learn the same general history, grammar, sociology and math, and our vocational students all learn the same technical vocabulary; their employment potential in the marketplace is higher everywhere. Of course a national system would also allow for appropriate local information and traditions to be included in a curriculum. In any truly functional educational system the differences in students learning styles and skills within and across educational tracks has to be accommodated also. A good system would also allow vocational students to take classes in Shakespeare or Jazz if they wanted to and also allow academic students to learn automotive repair or how to cook for 100 guests.
Equally as critical to a well functioning educational system after the what and how are organized, is the how to pay for it aspect. In many areas of the country the funding source for schools is property taxes. It is a system designed in the early 18th Century when America was 98% rural and a farming based economy. Then wealth (thus the ability to pay) was very much tied to the amount and value of property one owned. 200+ years later this system is entirely dysfunctional and inappropriate for funding anything, especially schools. Today most property where people live is strictly residential. It is no longer the house on the farm or the apartment over the store or business one owns. It may reflect the amount of where withal someone had in their peak earning years; but it often no longer reflects one's ability to pay. This discrepancy between property value and the ability to pay high school levies, is growing ever more prevalent as the 75 million baby boomers move into retirement. They want to stay in their home communities, in the comfort they have earned in a lifetime of work, in the house they raised their families in. However school taxes that are outpacing rises in the cost of living by 2 or 3 to 1, are making that untenable for many seniors. Since ability to pay has always been the appropriate criteria for taxation; school funding taxes should come out a general fund based on income tax, whether it is done on a statewide or national level.
Another major problem with using property taxes to fund education is that it has had a significant hand in causing the current discrepancy of results from one area school to the next. Poor neighborhoods invariably have less money per student to work with than rich neighborhoods. Money is not the only important factor in providing a good education, but it is critical when it comes to providing adequate facilities and materials for the students. Kids can't learn as well in old a 100 year old school with peeling paint, rusty water, overflowing plumbing, etc. Nor can they learn as well with outdated and damaged books or lacking other essential school materials. In1965 when we decided on the national level that all American children deserved an equal education, the assumption was that there would be equal funding for all students. However the archaic system based on property tax has made it impossible for poorer students to get the type and quality of education that richer students do. Many of our students are underperforming because of the lack of appropriate funding for their schools. Just throwing more money at our poorer urban and rural schools won't solve their problems; but if targeted properly; it can be used to help improve their learning environment. More importantly, it will create and demonstrate a real commitment and show our increased respect for the value, ability, potential of our economically disadvantage student population as well as our confidence in their being able to successfully accomplish their educational goals at any level.
The people of a 21th Century America deserve a present day approach to both the design and funding of our educational system. In a modern national educational system what students everywhere learn wouldn't be dependent on the proclivities of the text book content decisions of a just a single state, such as Texas' book buying authority. In a nationally funded system students anywhere wouldn't have to be subject to limits imposed by Mississippi's policy to have minimal taxes and thus inadequate funding for minority area schools, while leaving richer non-minority area residents money to send their children to de facto segregated schools. In fact a national educational system could eliminate most all the evils of the current system which gives the rich and connected advantages over the poor and isolated in an educational system that is supposed to be entirely free and equal for all children. A national educational system will provide a better education for all American's children, both rich and poor. It will also create a better educated population, a more skilled work force, a greater number of professionals and inventive entrepreneurs; and thus in every way be better for America as we strive to win the future.
