Across the counter, a young woman poises, ready to meet any challenge presented. Only a sapling in the grand scheme of life, she holds out hope of a future separated from the grime and stench of fast food servitude. Her eyes beam with self-confidence, strength derived from years of personal esteem conditioning. She beckons to an aged customer come closer and place his order; her smile beams with pride as she attentively clings to his every request. The trained fingers speed to the keys on the register like a flash of lightning, yet the machine fails in its computed response. Barely checked, she repeats her movements with undaunted zeal; again, nothing. The smile melts from her face and her pulse quickens, pulsing so hard that the sound becomes a drum in her ears. The customer slides the crisp ten dollar bill across the counter, confident in the attendant’s skills and adaptability. Yet, her brow falls and her countenance descends into the mire of uncertainty. The register mocks her in its abandonment, the iridescent screen blank and foreboding. Numbers speed through her mind without ceasing, the difference of the $7.85 meal a mathematical wall of insurmountable height. Panic spreads across her face like the ripple of an ill bred tide and great drops of perspiration bead across her forehead.
Sigmund Freud once declared, “What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of a child and the feeble mentality of the average adult.” Though he was addressing sociological acceptance of philosophy, the same is true regarding the average education in America. Children start as impressionable sponges, ready to absorb any knowledge brought within their spectrum. Yet, todays graduates of secondary education are not prepared for the rigors of independent life. The education system in America has become a breeding ground for mediocrity; the goal of each level to pass the young person on to the next stage…whether prepared for it or not. However, the issue is not new; education reform has persisted as a platform for political candidates at every level. Legislation adopted and revised continually in the attempt to remedy the rifts in the system fall short of bridging the ever-widening gaps. Teachers bear the blame for the misguidance of the future generation. Demands for quality control clash against the unwillingness to agree on justifiable educator wage. Nevertheless, the solution to the equation has been before us, unseen and unknown. Through systematic changes to the culture of education, we will better prepare future generations for life outside the sandbox.
Upon graduating from high school in America, students have a number of options before them: primarily, go to work or go to college. Unfortunately, they are not prepared for either. At the age of seventeen or eighteen, a person has not gained the “real world” experience necessary to be employed in a demanding career; concurrently, uncertainty reigns over what career pathway students should desire to pursue in continuing education. But is that the fault of the graduate? Twelve years of education have conveyed them to this point with the promise of adulthood and freedom of decision. American educator and writer, Robert M. Hutchins, rightly noted, “The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.” The hours spent in mathematics, English, science, and history should have been the catalyst needed to release these fresh young minds into the working class, fueling the next generation of blue collar laborers. Yet the number of unemployed youth is ballooning beyond our future control. In 2009, the percentage of unemployed 16-24 year olds nationwide was a staggering 53.4 percent; a post World-War II high according to the Labor Department (Wilner, para. 2). America is not alone in this crisis. Throughout Europe, young adults are facing a bleak future in employment. The concern is whether these young adults are receiving an education that qualifies them for employment.
Nick Brake, president and CEO of the Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corporation, identifies the alarming issue that, “the Associate Degree today is the high school diploma of 50 or 20 years ago” (Gaston, 2005, para. 21). Have we as a nation allowed our education standards to lapse so far into mediocrity that our young are simply not ready to become contributing members of society? The answer is unequivocally yes. The current Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores continue to lag behind their 1970 levels, while the average school year has been reduced by seven days (Bethell, 2005, p. 17). Standards have been reduced throughout the nation to accommodate budgetary constraints and the idiom of not holding back those who struggle because of concern over self-esteem. In Illinois, meeting the state’s minimum graduation requirements will not open the door to most state’s four-year universities (Heckel, 2010, para. 2). The failing perception of public education is not limited to national testing or educator opinion. Forty percent of recent high school graduates believe there are gaps in what they acquired in secondary education and the expectations of them in college and in the work force (Peter, 2005, p. 2). Unfortunately, America is falling behind globally; while foreign graduates are finding an increasing number of opportunities available to them with our borders.
The results of national polls hold dire results for American education. As an emblem of freedom, wisdom, and the entrepreneurial spirit, this nation, scholastically, falls into the mid-range worldwide. In the 2009 educational score performance the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found the United States as being 33rd in literacy, 27th in mathematics, and 22nd in science worldwide. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in its report card for public schools indicates that students yield rapid gains in elementary school, decrease in middle school, and stop all together in senior high (Gaston, 2005, para. 2). However, it is not for lack of funding that these problems persist, nor is the issue relegated to states with a predominantly impoverished constituency. As a state that spends an astonishing portion of its budget on public education (28 percent), Oregon has fallen to 32nd in the nation and has received a middling education reform grade, a clear indicator that more money does not fix the fracture in student comprehension (Ladner & LeFevre, 2010, para. 2). A startling level of mediocrity has permeated our educational culture and it is truly beginning to rear its head as a rapidly increasing number of graduates cannot demonstrate the skills necessary to move on independently.
Modern schools simply are not teaching our children the skills and knowledge required to become effective and efficient citizens. The focus has become one of permanent education; secondary education leading to undergraduate studies, only to be bombarded with continuing education once employed. Unfortunately, continuing education would be a welcome challenge compared to the startling necessity of remedial education in America. Among college instructors, the perception has become that a considerable amount of time is wasted teaching material that should have been learned in high school (Peter, 2005, p. 2). Community colleges, nationwide, utilize forms of standard testing to discover the general aptitude of applicants, specifically in the studies of math, writing, and reading comprehension. Alarmingly, classes such as pre-algebra, intro to writing, and basic reading occupy the schedules of a vast number of students, including recent graduates. Some may argue that the education received in high school is subject to the state standards, yet data displaces these arguments. The Kentucky journal Public Life Advocate states, “Kentucky schools rank reasonably well in the nation. However…too many students drop out of high school, too few graduates go on to college, too few of those attending college successfully complete their degree, and too many freshmen must take remedial courses” (Gaston, 2005, para. 4-5). The dilemma arises in logically deducing the assets dedicated to remedial education that could be better used elsewhere.
Strictly identifying the monetary allotment required to perpetuate the status quo, one quickly discovers grounds for tuition continuing to rise exponentially. The financial levy of remedial education has become a millstone around the necks of students, parents, and taxpayers. In Kentucky, $25 million is spent per year on remedial education; students, or their parents, pay $11 million while taxpayers pick up $14 million (Gaston, 2005, para. 16). A simple reallocation of this budget could assist in the reduction of student tuition or the hiring of more professionals aimed at educating our future workforce. Yet, repeatedly, the need for remedial education arises, propelled by the lack of previous education. Our schools are graduating students with minimal understanding in simplistic concepts. The end result becomes students who are ill prepared, ill equipped, and ill used. Additionally, remedial courses are not included in degree programs and are thereby an additional cost for incoming students. Tom Gaston, writer for Public Life Advocate, expounds by identifying the fact that these classes are not part of the degree program means that students are paying extra tuition, thereby losing income, eventually causing students to delay course completion or quit altogether (2005, para. 15). Through our lack of accountability for student education, we, as a nation, have created a culture of disappointment and failure. Though blame must fall on everyone involved in education, a primary focus is directed on those providing the teaching.
Those who choose to saddle themselves with the profession of educating our young adults must realize the expectation and quality required of them. It is disturbing to note that in various states an individual, in their personal studies, can score in the bottom 25 percent in mathematics and reading and still qualify to become a teacher (Sowell, 2005, p. 44). When the standard has developed into one of mediocrity, it becomes evident that we have left our children to receive substandard teaching from substandard college graduates. The question begs asking as to whether generalized teacher training has truly been to the benefit of our students. Yet, are we asking teachers to do more than they should and are capable of doing? Educators must now be babysitters, psychologists, referees, and back street doctors prescribing medication to children who are unruly. Perhaps the solution resides in focused education for instructors. The number of teachers possessing a Master’s Degree in a specific subject, as opposed to general education, has declined precipitously from seventeen percent in 1982 to a meager five percent in 2005 (Bethell, 2005, p. 17). We have left the blind to lead the blind and even students have begun to take notice of this failure. A study conducted in the European Journal of Teacher Education concluded students deemed value in educators with long academic studies in contrast to rudimentary teacher training (Jyrhama et al., 2008, p. 11). However, in requiring higher standards for teachers, a higher degree of compensation must follow, particularly in regards to trust and respect.
If we are to demand greater standards in education, conjoin it with a culture of trust. Pasi Sahlberg notes, “The culture of trust simply means that education authorities and political leaders believe that teachers, together with principles, parents and their communities, know how to provide the best possible education for their children and youth (2007, p. 157). Too often, teachers have become the educational pariah. Demanding change concerning personal education of future educators without regard to the obligatory freedom and respect that they deserve is, at a minimum, unfair. Yet, legislation continues to focus on demanding teacher accountability and thereby employment if students are not excelling. Sahlberg contends that Finland, as an example, has not copied the current trend globally in assuming that demanding accountability in student performance from schools and teachers is essential to increasing student achievement (2007, p. 155). Undoubtedly, America has strained the relationship between teachers, parents, communities, and politicians. The consequence of such tension has been detrimental to remedying the pitfalls of public education. Fortunately, beacons of hope remain outside this nation to light the path to redemption.
Finland has been regarded as a pinnacle of scholastic standards; the NAEP lists them among the top three most educated nations categorically. If a cursory view of foreign policy were to revolutionize American education, then an in-depth assessment of proven progress must be a priority. It is essential to first note that every standard educator is required to possess a Master’s Degree to achieve permanent employment (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 153). In order to attain the results for which we strive, we can look no further. To educate our future graduates, it is essential that we demand a high degree of scholastic excellence from our instructors; bear in mind that our teachers are the benchmark for student achievement. We must place a priority on presenting an image, a standard, through which all students hope to emulate. Here again, it bears repeating that greater responsibility on the teacher’s part comes greater compensation on the part of taxpayers, parents, and politicians. Finnish educators are favorably salaried; teaching is one of the most desired professions in Finland. Additionally, class sizes are kept to a satisfactory ratio. Sahlberg comments, “Well-equipped schools are typically small, with class sizes ranging from twenty to thirty students” (2007, p. 153). By reducing the burden on teachers, we would also discontinue the misappropriation of educator time and resources. The solutions are simple and well displayed throughout a multitude of nations, however, not everyone agrees with the global acceptance of educational ranking.
Adversaries of NAEP rankings will highlight the blossoming development of self-esteem and creativity permeating American education. G. W. Bracey contends that the culture of “cooperation and consensus” prevalent in Japan attribute to a more urbane society, yet our “combatative culture” bequeaths us with an advantage in creativity (2005, p. 28). Still, creativity does not promote, nor perpetuate educational achievement. No amount of imagination can compensate for the lack of logical thought; a requirement for basic employment in nearly every sector. Bracey continues by stating that though the U.S. is 29th in mathematics, it ranks second in competitiveness; Korea who is third in mathematics is 27th in competitiveness (2005, p. 26). The dilemma is that, though competitive, America is stuck contending with other mediocre countries. While creativity and competition are essential aspects of education, students who cannot complete basic math problems or comprehend simple literary works are not properly equipped to become functioning adults. However, Bracey makes a compelling point that standardized testing, which is the basis for NAEP rankings, may not be the preeminent means of determining scholastic achievement.
Many foreign countries are opposed to basing achievement on test results, contending that such analysis only detracts from the atmosphere of learning. Policy makers in Finland have remained unconvinced that “high-stakes” testing really increases educational discovery; the validity of such testing must be questioned if student learning remains positively unchanged (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 166). America has focused the majority of recent legislation toward adopting stringent testing policy, No Child Left Behind Act, where the generalized score of students dictate future curriculum. Faults are readily found in this way of thinking as defining education upon the basis of averages creates a disparity within student comprehension. Students who excel beyond the average are subject to stasis within their scholastic careers while those scoring below are apt to be thrust forward through the school system, hopeful that someone will invest the time to properly motivate them. As Sahlberg notes of Finnish education, “Primary school is, to a large extent, a ‘testing-free zone’ reserved for learning to know, to do, and to sustain natural curiosity” (2007, p. 156). It is this “natural curiosity” that needs fostering within our schools today. Testing and instruction must lessen in importance comparative to learning if we are to reestablish an environment focused on sustaining viable education. Nevertheless, students need to take a proactive approach to furthering their personal comprehension and dedication.
Too many students have developed lethargic attitudes pertaining to the importance of education. Despite sub-par standards within the education system, students reserve the freedom to direct future career paths according to their standards. Yet, scores of students recognize the requirement to take three years of mathematics to graduate and decide not to pursue a fourth year of direction (Heckel, 2010, para. 31). A problem has arisen in students choosing lethargy and complacency as opposed to competition and creativity Bracey indicates to be essential in secondary education. Students, at least the majority, are not interested in building upon the foundations laid through early childhood development. However, students are not provided adequate guidance in deeming paths most suitable to their scholastic goals. In Wisconsin, students can select the school district and career “pathway” leading to a specified four-year plan for grades 9-12. This path also includes guidance in selecting electives, possible internships, and post-secondary education befitting their preference (Strittmater, 2011, para. 14). It is imperative that young adults perceive the challenges awaiting them beyond the confines of public education. Without goals and aspirations, they remain to wander through entry-level employment and post-secondary education, according to the Dubai Business Report, “[Students] find themselves leaving university, often heavily in debt and entering a far more competitive work environment than ever before” (“Don’t Celebrate,” 2010, para. 4). If these young minds are not prepared for the evolutionary leap required academically, how can they be expected to understand the ominous professional landscape before them? It is the duty and responsibility of educators and pupils to invest in the revolutionary concept of preparatory education.
Nick Brake, member of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence task force, contends that students who choose not to enroll in college should be required to attend a specialized curriculum preparing them for the workplace (Gaston, 2005, para. 21). The idea derives from the necessity to prepare young adults for the transition to adulthood. As Native American culture has displayed, young men were required to go through a ‘trial’ in which the individual would be tested; this training would ready them for not only adulthood, but also the profession of warrior. Likewise, our students must be prepared to tackle the rigors of adult life, including proper conduct and comprehension within the work environment. Though not a revolutionary principle, real-world education will better suit the budding ideologies of students in the classroom. It is no secret that people learn better, when they are interested in the topic of conversation. In fact, 97 percent of non-college students believe that providing opportunities for real-world learning and making coursework more relevant would improve education conditions (Peter, 2005, p. 13). Graduates should walk off the dais, elated at receiving their diploma, with the awareness that employment is within their immediate grasp. Unfortunately, the public education system does not display concern over the importance of preparatory education. As recent attendance statistics show, families are migrating away from public schooling.
Private schools tend to be better equipped to handle the overwhelming need of education reform in America. Without the budgetary constraints of taxpayer-supported education, the school may alter or mold their standards to the need of individuals. Concurrently, private institutions remain free in policy regarding the hiring and retention of educators. Essayist T. Sowell agrees in stating that, “Private schools are able to get better qualified people, partly because [most] do not let education course requirements screen out intelligent people” (2005, p. 46). In allowing the most intelligent role models for future graduates, the atmosphere of complacency dissolves with the byproduct of socially and economically prepared individuals. A shift in understanding is progressing in which learning, primarily, is in the expectation of students to retain specialized training. Charter schools are adapting to these changes by offering scholastic programs bent towards subject driven education. Private schools are rapidly joining the fray. However, a primary item remains uninvestigated; parents must take an active role in supplementing education in America.
Homeschooling, especially within the southern Oregon valley, has grown exponentially. The cause of this growth readily attributed to the very issues presented in this document. The dilemma of parental interest in their child’s education is wholly addressed. Opponents of homeschooling argue that students are not compelled to validate achievement through state assessments, and no standardized curriculum is in existence for the revelation of individual progress (Hudak, 2005, p. 90). Despite these accusations, home educated students graduate earlier and enter college at younger ages than their publically taught counterparts; an important aspect as students must now contemplate their futures earlier and comprehend not only core subjects, but also the vital aspect of social skills and problem solving (Strittmater, 2011, para. 4). It is imperative to note social distortions that occur in holding children out of public education. This aspect in itself in paramount in preparing future graduates for employment beyond secondary education. However, the social influence in schools today only appears to perpetuate the attitude of complacency; it simply is not ‘cool’ to exceed minimum standards. The NAEP found in mathematics particularly, the majority of publicly educated students fall at or below basic comprehension of mathematic fundamentals in 12th grade. Nevertheless, a restructuring in scholastic perception is needed within every variety of education.
Priorities must be addressed within education regardless of the means. Through analyzing how school budgets are allocated, we can reveal our values, priorities, and “misguided ideas” about schools in the elimination of “counterproductive expenditures” (Kralovec, 2003, p. 47). Very little thought permeates the mist surrounding importance in education. A brief view of collegiate budgets displays frightening disparity in scholastic achievement and those pertaining to athletics. Moreover, the disinterest of parents and educators concerning student aptitude is evident through recent votes that have structured current education. Kralovec attests, “We don’t question the category of a budget line; we merely question whether we should allocate $19,000 or $24,000 to that line item” (2003, p. 65). Students, dropouts, failures have all become numbers to be annotated in a ledger that determines school budgeting. However, the amount of money exhausted on a particular field of study or student individually will never alter the present course or modify the current landscape of education. In Washington D.C., nearly $11,000 is spent per student while the dropout rate hovers at forty percent (Bethell, 2005, p. 21). No amount of money will change the culture of education if we do not first change the focus and determination of the school systems in the process. By throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at the problem, we are only creating expensive leeches to public assistance within unemployment and continuing education. Grimly humorous is the knowledge that everyone involved recognizes the problems, yet no one challenges the standard by which we adhere.
If left to continue in the current rut, future generations will inevitably construct for themselves insurmountable walls of ineffectuality. When educators and parents are not preparing their pupils for the quagmires inherent in individual life, dire consequences lurk in the shadows preparing to devour whomever they can. According to recent data, the average credit card debt among 25-34 year olds has increased 55 percent between 1992 and 2001. At the same time, credit card debt among 18-24 year olds has exploded by 104 percent (“Young Americans,” 2004, para. 4). Evidence presents the case that we have not even taught our children to manage their lives financially; though 80 percent of states have established personal finance education in K-12, nearly 64 percent of teachers feel unqualified to teach it. Only 37 percent of those same teachers had taken a college level course in personal finance (Holden & Way, 2010, p. 2). Despite the myriad of issues in education, this is the most alarming. We have educated our youth to consume without consideration, to spend without substantiation, and to remain dependent upon others for provision.
Look back at that young lady across the counter, eager for the answer to flash upon the screen…$2.15. Contemplate now whether this individual, a high school student, or recent graduate, if stymied by such a miniscule obstacle could effectively manage a bank ledger or accounting book. Yet, we are the ones who have created this standard. We have let this complacency permeate the confines of education. No longer can we remain in the back seat, hopeful for the return of common sense and ambition. If education is to change, those who know the importance of scholastic achievement must change it. If we remain idle, then it must not surprise us when the world supersedes this once mighty nation in education and industry.
References
Bethell, T. (2005). The quality of public education has declined. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 16-22). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Bracey, G.W. (2005). The quality of public education has not declined. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 23-28). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Don’t celebrate too soon: Degrees don’t mean jobs. (2010, July 5). In Kippreport. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from General Business File ASAP (A230732018).
Gaston, T. (2005). Prepared for college, prepared for life? Public Life Advocate 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.plfo.org.
Heckel, J. (2010, June 13). C-U Scholars program aims to prepare more students for life after high school. The News-Gazette.
Holden, K. & Way, W.L. (2010). Teacher’s background and capacity to teach personal finance: Results of a national study. National Endowment for Financial Education. Retrieved from http://www.nefe.org/tntfinalreport.
Hudak, E. (2005). Public education is preferable to home schooling. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 89-93). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Jyrhama, R., Kynaslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A., & Kansanen, P. (2008, February). The appreciation and realization of research-based teacher education: Finnish student’s experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/02619760701844993.
Kralovec, E. (2003). Schools that do too much: Wasting time and money in schools and what we can do about it (pp. 47-65). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ladner, M., LeFevre, A.T., & Lips, D. (2010). Report card on American education: Ranking state K-12 performance, progress, and reform. ALEC 16th edition. Retrieved from http://www.alec.org.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2005, February). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? (Independent Study). Washington, DC: Author.
Sahlberg, P. (2007, March). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171. doi: 10.1080/02680930601158919.
Sowell, T. (2005). Incompetent teachers harm public education. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 43-6). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Strittmater, N. (2011, February 26). Educators, schools strive to prepare students for life after high school [editorial]. Stevens Point Journal. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.stevenspointjournal.com.
Wilner, R. (2009, September 27). The dead end kids: Young, unemployed and facing a tough future. New York Post. Retrieved May 26, 2011.
Young Americans face crushing debt, report finds. (2004, October 26). In Demos. Retrieved from http://demos.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment