Recently, I have settled on a term that I feel describes what schools are expected to produce. Insisting that all children, if only provided with all the right supports, all the right tests, and all the patience we can manage will make it to college, will become doctors, diplomats, or astronauts.
However, I can't help thinking that there is an inherent bias and judgmentality in this line of thinking. What's wrong with becoming a trade person? What if a young person would excel at learning a craft that requires great skill? Some of these very trades pay far more than being a teacher, artist, or therapist. There will always be a place in our economy for master masons, plumbers, electricians, and carpenters.
Some of these students, indeed, can succeed as students. Yet, are they, or will the ever be, happy pegged into the demands of academia?
In the end, what does our education system do well? Who does it serve? How many students achieve less than they might because we demand that all students prepare for college, even if they have no intention to do so? I speak not only of the students who will pursue higher education, but also those who would prefer to spend the time learning a craft.
No Child Left Behind is an insidious failure. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals, it mandates mediocrity. Everyone is not the same. Why should we educate all of our students as if they are the same? Why should our goals for our students fit into a single package?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment