In the case of K-12 education for many years it was the local government that reigned supreme. Local schools raised most of the money and made most of the decisions. They were able to mould what was taught to the needs, thoughts and mores of the people in each community. While it was a good thing to meet the needs of the community, it meant a large disparity in what was provided by each community because of importance placed on enducation and the financial status of the community. It was also difficult to provide for special needs children and classes that would only be taken by a limited number of students.
This gave rise to the intermediate school district that was supported by a larger area, often a county in Michigan, and made it easier to provide special classes. Schools in the intermediate district could have one place where they could get information and knowledge on how to better administer their districts. Local needs could still be met and authority remained with the local areas.
I think local school districts realized that they would lose much local control when the state began funding schools, but I am not sure they realized how much control they would lose. For their share of funding, the school had to provide proof of the education that was provided and state testing began. Then to be sure that education was even throughout the state, methods began to be standardized throughout the state. What was seen at this point was that no matter what was done, there was always variation in how schools performed on the tests.
Meanwhile, the federal government stepped in with their ideas of fairness. They provided funds to try to even conditions between schools. Some problems were analyzed and additional funds were provided for students with reading deficits, problems such as poverty or divorced parents, as well as medical care and food programs designed to help students although not directly provided to schools. Grants were frequently awarded for programs to try and test new methods. Then came No Child Left Behind which involved funds and associated evaluations to make sure all children had the same education goals.
When I look at the more recent state and federal efforts, what I see is a well-intentioned attempt to level opportunities for all children. In many cases the result, however, is removing the creativity from the classroom for the student. In the test heavy environment that now prevails, where do we put the encouragement for students to solve problems, interact verbally and in writing with others, and to develop their creativity? Why do teachers have to have a four year degree and much additional on a continuing basis when they haven't much opportunity to interject their own strengths and abilities in the classroom, but must concentrate on rote learning for the tests? Emphasis on testing needs to be scaled back so that the best of students and teachers can come to the fore.
As far as post-secondary education, none of these three entities should have much say in what and how to teach. Businesses are the ones who should make their needs known. I would not advocate for free university education, but we need to have governments provide more support, especially in all areas involving science and math (including technology). The emphasis in universities needs to be put back on the academic and funding should follow suit. As discussed in another post, we need to provide enough support that students do not leave with unrealistic debt and that means funding support increases on the federal and state level.
Tomorrow - What Have We Forgotten to Teach our Children? Don't forget to leave comments by pressing the comment button below.
No comments:
Post a Comment