So, at long last, here we are again. I have found a few minutes to sit and type up a discussion of one of those topics I mentioned a while ago. In fact, I chose this particular subject because it is the only one of the three for which I already have a reasonably well formed opinion handy. The subject for tonight is education, and education reform. [See original post for entire discussion.]This is a very well thought out and cogent analysis. I'm especially impressed by the liberal interpretation of the "progress of science and useful arts" clause.
That said, I would suggest that simply shifting the center of gravity of the education system doesn't really constitute "restructuring of the whole education system". As senorpicasso points out, top-down money-based education policy helps upper echelons of administration far more than it does the students we would teach.
To actually "restructure" the education system, we need to address the structure of how we organize, manage, facilitate, and orchestrate the process of educating young minds, not simply extend but otherwise retain the broken hierarchical governance and out-dated control mechanisms that constrain and limit that structure.
Unfortunately, local communities, especially poorer communities, have far less control over how their schools are run than the 17th century Bostonians had over the prototypical school of the early Massachusetts colony. Would schooling have been anywhere near as effective in colonial America if the King of England had taken an interest in the education of the colonists? I suspect not.
It is through local control that quality education arises. While leveling educational funding is a laudible goal, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't disempower local communities. Those who are getting the short end of the stick economically don't need to be rapped over the knuckles with the long end of the stick as well. Vesting even more power over education at the federal level only serves to lengthen the stick.

No comments:
Post a Comment