Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: Public Education

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Austin, Roger D." <rda AT rti.org>
  • To: 'InterNetWorkers' <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Public Education
  • Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:02:32 -0400


Paul, this is written for constructive (and/or spirited) debate, not to
offend those like yourself in the public school system. I am sorry if you
were offended. I detect a nerve has been struck.

> What do you want? A civilization with a small, super-well educated
> elite, or a civilization where almost everyone can read, write and do
> math well enough to participate in a skilled economy?

I think a valid question should be "Can you have one without the other?" or
perhaps "Why not have both?". I don't think separating high-achievers from
low-achievers is necessarily a mistake. Others may differ in opinion.

Is a super-well educated elite a bad thing? Is this not similar to the
situation in much of the world now? Is there a large percentage of elite
running the government and industry from a small group of well-educated
elite from a handful of private universities? Are we making an overt choice
to refrain from advancing higher achieving students in the public schools to
force the maximum number of people to get a minimal education? How fat is
our bell curve?

> First off, remember that the public school system is responsible for
> educating every child: the dumb and the bright, the handicapped and
> physically gifted, the learning disabled and the regular kid, the
> motived and unmotivated, the hungry and the well-ed, the emotionally and
> behaviorally challenged and the mentally stable. These days, we are held
> much to a much higher standard of meeting that charge than we were in
> the 50s,60s, and 70s. Back then, if we could let the low end slide to
> give the high end more resources - the economy had jobs for the
> unskilled. These days, we can't.

No, the public schools are not responsible for educating every child. It
may be their mission, but not their responsibility. The responsibility
resides with the parents to see that their off-spring is educated. The
public schools shouldn't bail out the parents from these responsibilities.
Of course, this IMHO.

> There's a large body of education studies that show that mixed
> classrooms do little or no harm to high-level kids, but do a lot of good
> for the moderate to low end students within the standard curriculum.
> (Note that I doubt the studies were comparing high end achievement to
> that which might be gained through a more rigorous curriculum). Since we
> have to maximize achievement for every child on a limited budget, we mix
> differing achievement levels in the classroom.

I have no idea how a methodology could be created to test this hypothesis.
You get one chance with each child. How can you test to see if any
individual is not harmed? Do we really believe that we should maximize
achievement for every child? I wonder if this is really true or wishful
thinking.
The question in most parents minds would be "Do you want the public schools
to figure this out with my child?" Many parents (of which I am deliberately
not one) answer no to that question. I know a number of other parents who
have bolted from the school system other than my sister. Most of them are
active in their schools and tend to be higher income and better educated.
The public schools will miss them, but they won't be looking back.

> If you want every student to succeed and to be pushed to the limits
> academically, you need to do two things: open your wallet and cough up
> the dough and be prepared to support longer school days/school years.

What is success for each student? Is it forcing unmotivated and unruly
students to learn, or is it pushing each student to succeed as well as they
can? Is a flatter bell curve better than a spike?

The public does not support public schools blindly. I don't doubt that
funding for schools is lacking, but the current populace has voted for what
exists which they apparently feel is lacking. They also feel that they are
funding public schools well enough, but that the funding isn't being used to
full advantage and are reluctant to raise taxes.

I am sure it is difficult to be part of the school system and get
criticized. Many people who have higher achieving children are abandoning
public schools to get a more rigorous education. Why should they leave their
children in the public schools if they feel they are under-achieving and
they have the resources to move to a more rigorous school? What could be
done so that high-achievement kids remain in the public schools?

I assume there are few good answers to many of the questions, but I hope
that people keep trying. Roger (in RTP)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page